Deportation and other Immigration issues

[WildCat]

That's the key. We don't have a problem with people coming here who don't need jobs, we have problem with people coming here to take very low paying jobs.

Jobs that are only low-paying because they're dominated by illegal immigrants or desperate legal immigrants.

 

[Belz...]

Canada only allows those with money on hand and job skills that show they can support themselves. They don't allow penniless low-skilled workers.

Well, we do have a number of illegals in the country, and we of course also accept refugees and family members.

 

[Maya22]

This is depressing...

Immigrant Mothers: Detention Center Harmful to Kids


Obama's Cruel Decision to Resume Mass Deportations

 

[Maya22]

In shift, Pelosi defends ‘discreet’ Obama immigration enforcement


discreet? I don't think so...

 

[Minoosh]

Canada requires immigrants to have cash to enter legally.

You have to have enough money for your stay.

Determine your eligibility - What you need to visit Canada as a tourist
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/apply-who.asp

But that doesn't apply to Mexicans. They don't need a visa. They can walk into Canada at any time.

They don't allow poor, low-skilled workers ...

Your stereotypes are not really up to date. In fact there is an opposite stereotype in play - the Mexican who can build, wire and plumb a house from the ground up. Or women who can cook, clean, sew, take care of babies and take care of old people. Maybe they average out.

That word "allow." I keep coming back to the physical reality of the border which seems so difficult for Midwesterners to grasp. When there's a 2,000-mile common land border "allowed" is not really the right verb. People get through.

... nor do they allow illegals to stay.

Therefore there aren't any? Seriously? No illegal Chinese in Vancouver? Mexicans can enter Canada without a visa, therefore aren't "illegal" to begin with. And many do get welfare initially.

A Mexican can walk into Canada anytime.

Then don't complain about stagnant wages and the disappearing middle class when you decide low wages and poor working conditions is good policy.

I haven't complained about it. I see value to having a Mexican middle class as well and I think there is room for both. Remittances send funds straight to families, (possibly) bypassing drug cartels and corrupt officials. YMMV.

 

[WildCat]

You have to have enough money for your stay.

Determine your eligibility - What you need to visit Canada as a tourist
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/visit/apply-who.asp

But that doesn't apply to Mexicans. They don't need a visa. They can walk into Canada at any time.

As a tourist, not as an immigrant.

Your stereotypes are not really up to date. In fact there is an opposite stereotype in play - the Mexican who can build, wire and plumb a house from the ground up. Or women who can cook, clean, sew, take care of babies and take care of old people. Maybe they average out.

And they'll do it for $10/hr cash so they don't have to pay taxes and the employer also can avoid his share of the taxes and workman's comp and other costs.

That word "allow." I keep coming back to the physical reality of the border which seems so difficult for Midwesterners to grasp. When there's a 2,000-mile common land border "allowed" is not really the right verb. People get through.

Of course they'll get through. The issue is letting them stay even when they're caught here, even when they get convicted of crimes in many cases.

Therefore there aren't any? Seriously? No illegal Chinese in Vancouver? Mexicans can enter Canada without a visa, therefore aren't "illegal" to begin with. And many do get welfare initially.

I never said there weren't any illegals there, but Canada will deport them when they are found.

A Mexican can walk into Canada anytime.

As a tourist.

I haven't complained about it. I see value to having a Mexican middle class as well and I think there is room for both. Remittances send funds straight to families, (possibly) bypassing drug cartels and corrupt officials. YMMV.

Do you see value in lower wages and benefits and poor working conditions?

 

[Minoosh]

As a tourist, not as an immigrant.

And 40 percent of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. overstayed visas. The point goes to this whole wall nonsense.

And they'll do it for $10/hr cash so they don't have to pay taxes and the employer also can avoid his share of the taxes and workman's comp and other costs.

Right. They'll live more cheaply and still manage to send money home. Why can't poor people in the U.S. do this?

Of course they'll get through. The issue is letting them stay even when they're caught here, even when they get convicted of crimes in many cases.

There's a process. If you want to bring up well-documented instances of "letting them stay" please do because generalizations aren't furthering the conversation. If you want to compare U.S. and Canadian deportation rates please provide links or some evidence other than your pronouncements.

Do you see value in lower wages and benefits and poor working conditions?

Yes. As do many American corporations, and by extension, many American consumers.

We've had this exact exchange. You have no problem with lower wages and benefits and poor working conditions, as long as they are happening in other countries. Illegal immigrants are the scab labor that many Americans don't want to compete with. Do you see any value in competition? How far do you take your protectionist policies?

 

[sunmaster14]

And 40 percent of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. overstayed visas. The point goes to this whole wall nonsense.

Well, I see you've changed to 40% from 50%, but the number is still wrong, as I've shown with math. All of the public references to the 40% number come from the same study, which was done a long time ago, had huge error bars, and was methodologically suspect. This excerpt from that study shows that the illegal immigrants due to visa overstays is probably overestimated:

The figures for some countries overstate the actual undocumented population. In general, the net
nonimmigrant overstay figures are more likely to be overestimates than underestimates because the
collection of departure forms for long-term overstays who depart probably is less complete than for
those who depart within the first year.

The estimates include a large number of persons who have not been admitted for lawful permanent
residence but are permitted to remain in the United States pending the determination of their status
or until conditions improve in their country of origin. This category includes many of the
undocumented immigrants from El Salvador, aliens from other countries in a status referred to as
"deferred enforced departure", and IRCA applicants whose cases have not been finally resolved.

This excerpt shows that the number of illegal immigrants who entered illegally (entry without inspection, or EWI) is, if anything, underestimated:

The number of EWIs is the most difficult component to estimate with precision, and errors in this
component have the largest effect on the estimated undocumented population from Mexico. In
particular, the shortage of information about two components--emigration of legally resident
immigrants and undercount in the CPS--makes it difficult to derive acceptable residual estimates of
the number of undocumented immigrants counted in the CPS.

Right. They'll live more cheaply and still manage to send money home. Why can't poor people in the U.S. do this?

Because poor citizens of the US are entitled to various social benefits (including having their kids educated for free) regardless of whether or not they have a job, so they lose the incentive. Illegal immigrants must work in order to be able to pay for living in the US (things like housing, transportation, clothing, and food), but they get to have their kids educated for free, which is a hugely valuable perquisite. So the incentive to come here and work for peanuts, while reaping tens of thousands of dollars worth of US benefits for their children, is very strong.

<snip>

Yes. As do many American corporations, and by extension, many American consumers.

The hidden costs outweigh the benefits. The strain that low-skilled, illegal immigrants put on our infrastructure, in particular our educational infrastructure, far outweighs the benefit of their low-skilled labor, even if they are underpaid in wage terms. It's really quite simple economics. In addition, the US-born children of poor illegal immigrants are, upon birth on US soil, are immediately poor US citizens, with all of the burden that that entails based on statistics.

We've had this exact exchange. You have no problem with lower wages and benefits and poor working conditions, as long as they are happening in other countries. Illegal immigrants are the scab labor that many Americans don't want to compete with. Do you see any value in competition? How far do you take your protectionist policies?

If there wasn't a social safety net in the US for the poor or working poor, then there wouldn't be much difference between a low-wage worker overseas or on our soil. Since there is such a social safety net, however, the difference is enormous.

 

[WildCat]

And 40 percent of the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. overstayed visas. The point goes to this whole wall nonsense.

We were talking about immigration policy, and Canada does not allow poor immigrants with low job skills. This isn't about tourism.

Right. They'll live more cheaply and still manage to send money home. Why can't poor people in the U.S. do this?

Because they have access to more government benefits so such jobs arentl attractive to them. Which brings up another point - illegal immigrants lower the wage scale to such appoint where the domestic pool of low-skilled workers chooses to remain unemployed and on welfare.

There's a process. If you want to bring up well-documented instances of "letting them stay" please do because generalizations aren't furthering the conversation. If you want to compare U.S. and Canadian deportation rates please provide links or some evidence other than your pronouncements.

There are huge swaths of the USA which have declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Even when they get convicted of crimes they don't get deported or reported to ICE. The Obama administration has enacted a policy to let them stay, that is being cchallenged in court at the moment. Surely you weren't unaware of this?

Is there any such equivalent in Canada?

Yes. As do many American corporations, and by extension, many American consumers.

Corporations, due to lax government enforcement, are faced with a choice of hiring illegals or hiring more expensive legal labor and risk getting put out of business by their competitors who will hire illegal labor and undercut them on price which can put them out of business entirely.

We've had this exact exchange. You have no problem with lower wages and benefits and poor working conditions, as long as they are happening in other countries. Illegal immigrants are the scab labor that many Americans don't want to compete with. Do you see any value in competition? How far do you take your protectionist policies?

Yes, you've made this nonsensical argument before. It's every bit as ridiculous now as it was then. The US government has a responsibility to Americans, not foreigners. It is up to foreign governments to raise the living standards in their own countries, and I support them in these efforts which is why I am for free trade which is beneficial to all countries whereas your open immigration policy is beneficial to none.

 

[Minoosh]

Well, I see you've changed to 40% from 50%, but the number is still wrong, as I've shown with math.

Not that I'm a huge fan of the Department of Homeland Security, but your math was peppered with assumptions. While we are at it, the 11 million-12 million numbers are also widely attributable to one study, which further hoses any data about percentage of visa overstays. Ann Coulter says there is no question there are at least 30 million.

Ann Coulter wrongly claims that U.S. 'has already taken in one-fourth of Mexico's entire population'

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/02/ann-coulter/no-us-has-not-taken-14-mexicos-population/

Rated "Pants on Fire."

Because poor citizens of the US are entitled to various social benefits (including having their kids educated for free) regardless of whether or not they have a job ...

Any child present in the U.S. is legally entitled to a free education. Understand that much, OK? And take it out of the equation.

Illegal immigrants must work in order to be able to pay for living in the US (things like housing, transportation, clothing, and food),

Oh, horrors. People willing to work for those things are undercutting people who aren't willing to work for those things. These aspirational poor people give birth to U.S. citizens who are perhaps also aspirational. But they're hurting the U.S. citizens willing to settle for whatever benefits they can suck up as long as they don't have to work.

The hidden costs outweigh the benefits.

There are conflicting statistics about that and like determinations of total numbers must much depend on extrapolation. The IRS estimates that 6 million illegal immigrants file federal income tax returns each year. The Institution on Taxation and Public Policy estimates that illegal immigrants pay $11.68 billion in state and local taxes each year, an estimated 8 percent of their income. My purpose here is not to argue about net cost/benefit but to point out that there are vastly divergent ways of estimating that.

It's really quite simple economics.

And the entitlement to education is really quite simple constitutional law. I *shudder* to think what could happen if a significant percentage of poor people saw educating their children (and hard work) as priorities for bringing their families out of poverty.

 

[Minoosh]

We were talking about immigration policy, and Canada does not allow poor immigrants with low job skills. This isn't about tourism.

Please cite the Canadian requirements. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see the source.

Because they have access to more government benefits so such jobs arentl attractive to them.

So: Poor U.S. citizens are not motivated to work so hard because they can suck up free benefits instead?

Which brings up another point - illegal immigrants lower the wage scale to such appoint where the domestic pool of low-skilled workers chooses to remain unemployed and on welfare.

That doesn't bring up another point; it reiterates the same point. The question remains: How do illegal immigrants manage to make $10/hour, make a living with access to fewer benefits (according to you) and still send money home? If the answer is "because they are more motivated than U.S. citizens," think about how that reflects on the U.S. citizens.

I read a news story once about the legal farmworkers. It was just guys, not families, since they were legal and thus able to visit their families in Mexico fairly frequently. They lived 4 to a motel room, so housing plus all utilities (including Cable! Pool! Free Wi-Fi!) cost them about $10 a day. Four people shared a bathroom. Two people shared a queen-sized mattress. They ate well. The horror. The horror. This would have been incredible luxury to my Okie farmworker mom.

Is there any such equivalent in Canada?

Does Canada have sanctuary cities, you mean? Probably. The whole country is sanctuary for people trying to escape the death penalty. Canada will hold U.S. residents but will not send them back if they face the death penalty. During the Vietnam War the whole country was sanctuary to young men required by U.S. law to face a 1-in-10 chance of dying in an idiotic foreign war. What is with all this defense of Canada, BTW? I happily concede that Canada has a better government than the U.S. in many, many ways. I like the stricter handgun laws and UHC, for example. Do you?

It is up to foreign governments to raise the living standards in their own countries, and I support them in these efforts which is why I am for free trade which is beneficial to all countries whereas your open immigration policy is beneficial to none.

"My" open immigration policy? Cite this? If you believe in free trade then let's have free trade in labor. I'm not even talking about immigration, I'm talking about work permits. Four guys in a motel room. Not citizens. Willing to live simply just to have a shot out of poverty for their families.

 

[Minoosh]

Vancouver looks at becoming 'sanctuary city'
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/vancouver+looks+becoming+sanctuary+city/11821402/story.html

City of Vancouver passes ‘access without fear’ policy
http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2016/04/06/city-of-vancouver-passes-access-without-fear-policy.html

Canada looks GREAT to me if "your" boy Trump wins the presidency.

See what I did there, WC? SM?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Many of us felt bad. Some of the people had been good workers and good people. We knew they had families back in wherever and it was very difficult to earn any kind of living back there.

Yeah, the job market in wherever is terrible.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not that I'm a huge fan of the Department of Homeland Security, but your math was peppered with assumptions. While we are at it, the 11 million-12 million numbers are also widely attributable to one study, which further hoses any data about percentage of visa overstays. Ann Coulter says there is no question there are at least 30 million.

Ann Coulter wrongly claims that U.S. 'has already taken in one-fourth of Mexico's entire population'

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/02/ann-coulter/no-us-has-not-taken-14-mexicos-population/

Rated "Pants on Fire."

Not sure what that has to do with my original post, but whatever. There was a Bear Stearns report from about 10 years ago which argued that the illegal immigrant population in the US was significantly understated.

Any child present in the U.S. is legally entitled to a free education. Understand that much, OK? And take it out of the equation.

Huh? That's my point. Mexican parents who live in Mexico can't get their children a free education in the US. They have to come to the US to do that. Given the value of an education in the US (and it costs the US taxpayer at various levels roughly $18,000 per pupil per year, on average), that's a pretty big incentive to come to the US. For Mexican parents who care about their children's future, even subsistence level wages for full-time, hard labor are worth it, if it means their kids can go to public school in the US.

Oh, horrors. People willing to work for those things are undercutting people who aren't willing to work for those things. These aspirational poor people give birth to U.S. citizens who are perhaps also aspirational. But they're hurting the U.S. citizens willing to settle for whatever benefits they can suck up as long as they don't have to work.

Unemployed US citizens might be just as aspirational and hard-working if they were facing the same incentives. Their children get public education regardless of whether they get work in the US (and they get other subsistence level benefits), so why should they bother working for subsistence level wages?

There are conflicting statistics about that and like determinations of total numbers must much depend on extrapolation. The IRS estimates that 6 million illegal immigrants file federal income tax returns each year. The Institution on Taxation and Public Policy estimates that illegal immigrants pay $11.68 billion in state and local taxes each year, an estimated 8 percent of their income. My purpose here is not to argue about net cost/benefit but to point out that there are vastly divergent ways of estimating that.

There are not conflicting statistics. The statistics are undisputed. There are conflicting claims, however, because one side (the "open borders" side) basically lies in order to advance its agenda. They simply leave out of the calculation the implicit costs of low-skilled workers moving to the US. The cost of educating illegal immigrant children isn't even an implicit cost. It's quite explicit actually and easy to quantify. The implicit costs would include things like the strain on infrastructure caused by an influx of low-income people (e.g. traffic, crime, emergency room care). If your household is paying less in taxes than the average the state spends per household on various services, then you're a net financial burden, not a benefit. This is not to denigrate anybody's individual worth as a human being or a potential contributor to society. Rather it is only to explain the how the financial accounting actually works for illegal immigrants.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

"My" open immigration policy? Cite this? If you believe in free trade then let's have free trade in labor. I'm not even talking about immigration, I'm talking about work permits. Four guys in a motel room. Not citizens. Willing to live simply just to have a shot out of poverty for their families.

Fine. But why are you against a wall then? A border wall would make it more likely that your dream of free trade in labor becomes a reality.

 

[Minoosh]

I love this forum. I can have the last word, for about 5 minutes. It's an addiction.

For Mexican parents who care about their children's future, even subsistence level wages for full-time, hard labor are worth it, if it means their kids can go to public school in the US.

And these are the people you want to keep out? The ones with so much hope and faith in the U.S.?

There are conflicting claims, however, because one side (the "open borders" side) basically lies in order to advance its agenda.

Only one side basically lies? That belief strikes me as naive.

The cost of educating illegal immigrant children isn't even an implicit cost.

First, to clarify: Are you talking about the U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants? Or about children who are themselves undocumented?

Whichever, we educate these children for the same reason we would any other children. I'm willing to foot the bill for the same reason I would foot the bill for anyone's kids.

It's quite explicit actually and easy to quantify.

I wish you would stop with the patronizing rhetoric. I try hard not to do it. I vet my posts for it (well, the last 2 or 3 not so much). For example I just snipped half of my reply to you.

If it's so easy to quantify, show me your work.

If your household is paying less in taxes than the average the state spends per household on various services, then you're a net financial burden, not a benefit.

The cost of educating children means that a great many families for a given period get more out than they pay in. Ideally, over time, the cost of educating children will be less than the cost of not educating children. Does that figure into the calculations? How about the fact that many U.S. citizens or legal residents are employed educating those children?

Do you count the $100B in Social Security contributions by illegal immigrants (over 10 years) that they will never be eligible to collect? Etc.

How about the benefits of having a young, healthy, legal workforce to help offset the increasing burden expected as baby boomers retire? Do you figure that in?

How about this. Red states are a net burden on the country - they contribute less to the federal government than they receive. That's what simple math tells us. However, real-life math is more complex.

 

[Minoosh]

Fine. But why are you against a wall then?

When was the last time you inspected the U.S.-Mexico border, or talked to a border agent about which kind of barriers work best in which terrain?

Sometimes it's vehicle bollards. Sometimes it's a fence. Sometimes it's remotely monitored high terrain where expected crossings are low. Sometimes it's a road that runs parallel to the border. Sometimes it's agents on the ground. On the Rio Grande, what do we do? Cede the river to Mexico? Build a wall up the middle? Invade Mexico and build the wall on the Mexican side? Should it be transparent, or opaque? Think about the physical terrain. Think about the likely countermeasures (e.g. tunnels, ladders).

I'm against a wall because I think it would be a hideous, environmentally unsound boondoggle. Costly, ineffective, etc.

A border wall would make it more likely that your dream of free trade in labor becomes a reality.

How? And cite evidence about why we know 2,000-mile-long walls are effective in curtailing mobile, motivated labor forces. If it's all really very simple, tell me how you know. Show your work. Cost, benefits etc.

 

[sunmaster14]

I love this forum. I can have the last word, for about 5 minutes. It's an addiction.

And these are the people you want to keep out? The ones with so much hope and faith in the U.S.?

I want the border to work like my front door. I want to let in only those that we choose to let in. And if I had my druthers, I would let in a lot of people from all over the world. Not just low-skilled people from next door, whose very first act, by the way, after setting foot on US soil, is to break the law.

Only one side basically lies? That belief strikes me as naive.

There is a right side and a wrong side in this. Either the net financial effect of an illegal immigrant is great than or equal to zero, or it is negative. There isn't really any magic to doing the calculation, as I've shown. If somebody wants to argue that the financial calculation is not the only one we should be doing, fine. But arguing that illegal immigration is a financial boon is dishonest. Even if it were a boon, don't you think we could do better if we got to pick and choose which immigrants to take? I'd rather have a medical doctor from India than an illiterate peasant from Mexico. Given our limited capacity for assimilating new immigrants, we really do, in effect, have to choose between them. For all intents and purposes, there are an infinite number of high skilled, law-abiding, Western values-admiring people who would jump at the chance to emigrate to the US.

First, to clarify: Are you talking about the U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants? Or about children who are themselves undocumented?

Doesn't matter. Both are given a free education here. And if it weren't for their families crossing the border illegally, we could have accepted an assimilated a different family from India or China or Nigeria.

Whichever, we educate these children for the same reason we would any other children. I'm willing to foot the bill for the same reason I would foot the bill for anyone's kids.

This isn't about whether or not we should educate kids present in the US regardless of how they got here. Of course we should. It's still a burden though. And it hurts the kids who were already here. They have to share limited school resources with kids streaming over the border. In addition, those kids streaming over the border consume a higher than average share of educational resources because, for the most part, they don't speak English, their parents don't speak English, and both they and their parents were poorly educated to being with.

I wish you would stop with the patronizing rhetoric. I try hard not to do it. I vet my posts for it (well, the last 2 or 3 not so much). For example I just snipped half of my reply to you.

How was that patronizing? I mean what I wrote literally. The costs of adding an additional pupil to a school district is east to quantify because school districts track their expenditures meticulously. If 20 extra students mean that another teacher has to be hired, another classroom has to be built, another addition to facilities staff has to be made, then that costs real resources and money.

If it's so easy to quantify, show me your work.

Meh, you'll just ignore it anyway

The cost of educating children means that a great many families for a given period get more out than they pay in. Ideally, over time, the cost of educating children will be less than the cost of not educating children. Does that figure into the calculations? How about the fact that many U.S. citizens or legal residents are employed educating those children?

This shows that you completely missed my point. See my explanation above.

Do you count the $100B in Social Security contributions by illegal immigrants (over 10 years) that they will never be eligible to collect? Etc.

I'm skeptical of that number. I'll look at the source for that later this evening. Regardless, that's negligible compared to the cost of education alone. This estimates that 6.9% of schoolchildren have illegal immigrant parents. This puts the annual expenditure for K-12 education in the US at $621B in 2011-12. That means the schoolchildren of illegal immigrants are costing the educational system 6.9%*$621B = $43B per year. As I've argued above, I think that number is probably conservative since the children of illegal immigrants probably burden the educational system more than the average pupil.

How about the benefits of having a young, healthy, legal workforce to help offset the increasing burden expected as baby boomers retire? Do you figure that in?

We can do that by increasing legal immigration, and picking who we want. But because of the burden of illegal immigration, we are limiting who we allow in through legal channels.

How about this. Red states are a net burden on the country - they contribute less to the federal government than they receive. That's what simple math tells us. However, real-life math is more complex.

That's quite a non sequitur. Red states didn't come here illegally, nor are more streaming in every day.

 

[sunmaster14]

When was the last time you inspected the U.S.-Mexico border, or talked to a border agent about which kind of barriers work best in which terrain?

Sometimes it's vehicle bollards. Sometimes it's a fence. Sometimes it's remotely monitored high terrain where expected crossings are low. Sometimes it's a road that runs parallel to the border. Sometimes it's agents on the ground. On the Rio Grande, what do we do? Cede the river to Mexico? Build a wall up the middle? Invade Mexico and build the wall on the Mexican side? Should it be transparent, or opaque? Think about the physical terrain. Think about the likely countermeasures (e.g. tunnels, ladders).

I'm against a wall because I think it would be a hideous, environmentally unsound boondoggle. Costly, ineffective, etc.



How? And cite evidence about why we know 2,000-mile-long walls are effective in curtailing mobile, motivated labor forces. If it's all really very simple, tell me how you know. Show your work. Cost, benefits etc.

If the wall would be ineffective, then I don't see why you should care. All it would be is another stimulus-like boondoggle to the tune of $10-$20B. That's a drop in the bucket. Obama's stimulus passed in 2009 spent $200B on infrastructure. I've never seen any evidence of that being effective. It was mostly just pissed into the wind. What's another $20B? At the least we would get a really huge medium for graffiti artists to play around with.

 

[twinstead]

If the wall would be ineffective, then I don't see why you should care. All it would be is another stimulus-like boondoggle to the tune of $10-$20B. That's a drop in the bucket. Obama's stimulus passed in 2009 spent $200B on infrastructure. I've never seen any evidence of that being effective. It was mostly just pissed into the wind. What's another $20B? At the least we would get a really huge medium for graffiti artists to play around with.

So you'll argue that spending money feeding school children needs to be seriously looked at to see if it makes sense fiscally and is effective, but you'll support a massive boonoggle wall because "well, Obama did it too".

You're complicated