• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Deportation and other Immigration issues

You seem to be having trouble keeping up with who you are asking about what.

Why do you want me to speak for other people about beliefs or claims you seem to think they have?

I never suggested those were beliefs or claims I have.

I think I was quite clear about that.

MY claim was that I am not passionate in my opposition to a wall because I believe it would be effective.
My justification for that claim is that it is myself I am referring to. Who better to know? What other justification do I need?

This is what my claim was:

"I submit that the reason why there is such passion among wall opponents is that they actually think a wall will be effective."


Then I asked:

"Is there anybody here who can sincerely deny that?"

Presumably, if you can sincerely deny the reason I gave for why there is such passion among wall opponents, then you must know of an alternative reason driving their passion. If there is no passion at all, then my claim is moot (and therefore pointless to deny). If there is passion, then there must be at least one reason for that passion. By denying my claim, you are implicitly claiming that believing the wall will be effective is not such a reason, or at least not one of the primary reasons. To deny it sincerely, I think you would have to provide an alternative primary reason, or at least explain how worries about it being too effective couldn't possibly be a reason. If you don't want to give such explanations, then just say so. If you haven't even formulated such explanations to begin with, then your denial was not sincere.


See the above highlighted sentence.

MY claim. You see, to begin with I am not at all "passionate" in my opposition to a wall. Nor do I believe that it would be successful.

You seem to also be completely incapable of assimilating the simple fact that I am speaking only for myself, and not for these imaginary "they" you are trying so desperately to concoct. In spite of the fact that I prefaced my post with that rather straightforward disclaimer.

Your call for a response was a request from "anybody". Apparently this was not a sincere request, but rather one you meant to limit to anybody who was properly constructed out of the straw you were pitching.

Sorry to disappoint.
 
Please cite the Canadian requirements. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see the source.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/ctc-vac/getting-started.asp

Pretend you're a 21 year old low-skilled Mexican who doesn't speak English or French.

So: Poor U.S. citizens are not motivated to work so hard because they can suck up free benefits instead?
That's not what I said. I'm saying when wages are artificially suppressed it's not irrational to choose welfare instead of work when welfare provides a better overall standard of living. So we have more people on welfare in order to have low-paying jobs.

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.
$10/hr goes a lot further when you don't take any witholdings. And it's much cheaper for employers too.

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.
If immigrant labor was unavailable how would the pay and conditions compare? You keep avoiding that.

As for your Okie mother we generally expect to live better than people did in the midst of the Great Depression.

Does Canada have sanctuary cities, you mean? Probably.
No, they don't.

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?
None of that is on topic, which of course is because this topic is not going well for you. So out come the red herrings!

"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.
Free trade in goods benefits all countries. Your open immigration policy just keeps everyone poor.

If you disagree then feel free to make your case for lower wages and poorer working conditions as the basis for a thriving economy.
 
See the above highlighted sentence.

MY claim. You see, to begin with I am not at all "passionate" in my opposition to a wall. Nor do I believe that it would be successful.

You seem to also be completely incapable of assimilating the simple fact that I am speaking only for myself, and not for these imaginary "they" you are trying so desperately to concoct. In spite of the fact that I prefaced my post with that rather straightforward disclaimer.

Your call for a response was a request from "anybody". Apparently this was not a sincere request, but rather one you meant to limit to anybody who was properly constructed out of the straw you were pitching.

Sorry to disappoint.

Ok, I understand now that your original post was a non sequitur.
 
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?
Yes I see what you did there, you posted something that didn't happen and are trying to pass it off as the same thing as if it did happen. It's quite bizarre, but that's what desperation breeds.
 
Pretend you're a 21 year old low-skilled Mexican who doesn't speak English or French.
Mostly I know aspirational Mexican teenagers willing to start at the bottom and, maybe, work their way up. I'm surrounded by hundreds of the little darlings. Culturally they are also American teenagers. I don't know their immigration status.

That's not what I said. I'm saying when wages are artificially suppressed it's not irrational to choose welfare instead of work when welfare provides a better overall standard of living. So we have more people on welfare in order to have low-paying jobs.
OK. Mexicans are the scabs taking jobs that Americans are too lazy to do because they're happy enough on welfare. It's complicated.

$10/hr goes a lot further when you don't take any witholdings. And it's much cheaper for employers too.
It does. It is. It's a marvel of deregulation.

If immigrant labor was unavailable how would the pay and conditions compare? You keep avoiding that.
When has immigrant labor not been available? Are greedy employers promulgating myths of labor shortages in order to lure young adventurers who will create a labor glut? Yeah, probably.

As for your Okie mother we generally expect to live better than people did in the midst of the Great Depression.
And Americans' expectations have caused many employers to stuff American jobs and go overseas, explicitly because expectations are lower. I'm not saying it's right, but it's reality.

No, they don't.

They do, according to the links I posted.

None of that is on topic, which of course is because this topic is not going well for you. So out come the red herrings!
You are assuming you know what "going well for me" looks like. I don't think you do.

Free trade in goods benefits all countries. Your open immigration policy just keeps everyone poor.
I don't know why you call it "my" immigration policy. I'm just acknowledging physical realities that other border-area residents - including George W. Bush and John McCain - recognize more readily than people in the Midwest.

If you disagree then feel free to make your case for lower wages and poorer working conditions as the basis for a thriving economy.
I like the idea of more countries having a middle class and investing in their own countries. Remittances matter. Sure, we can just let drug cartels and corrupt governments suck up U.S. cash, but funneling it to families in exchange for work is a better deal IMO.
 
Yes I see what you did there, you posted something that didn't happen and are trying to pass it off as the same thing as if it did happen. It's quite bizarre, but that's what desperation breeds.

The links are there for anyone to click on. Vancouver did take such steps. It's a matter of record. I'm not sure why you are characterizing it as something that didn't happen.
 
Mostly I know aspirational Mexican teenagers willing to start at the bottom and, maybe, work their way up. I'm surrounded by hundreds of the little darlings. Culturally they are also American teenagers. I don't know their immigration status.
That is wildly unrelated to the post you responded to! You obviously didn't click the link provided.

OK. Mexicans are the scabs taking jobs that Americans are too lazy to do because they're happy enough on welfare. It's complicated.

It does. It is. It's a marvel of deregulation.

When has immigrant labor not been available? Are greedy employers promulgating myths of labor shortages in order to lure young adventurers who will create a labor glut? Yeah, probably.
There are no labor shortages in the low-skilled job market. We have a crazy number of unemployed people in this country with few job skills, there is absolutely no reason to import such workers from abroad. Unless, of course, you think low wages and poor working conditions and large numbers of people on government assistance is a good thing.

And Americans' expectations have caused many employers to stuff American jobs and go overseas, explicitly because expectations are lower. I'm not saying it's right, but it's reality.
If things can be manufactured there more efficiently then they should be. That's how those countries will progress into the 1st World.

They do, according to the links I posted.
That wouldn't even count as a sanctuary city in the USA. It's not even close.

You are assuming you know what "going well for me" looks like. I don't think you do.

I don't know why you call it "my" immigration policy. I'm just acknowledging physical realities that other border-area residents - including George W. Bush and John McCain - recognize more readily than people in the Midwest.
You've made clear what kind of immigration policy you'd like. You think wages and working conditions are unacceptably high for low-skilled workers in the USA, and thus you wish to import more to further glut the already glutted low-skilled job market and depress wages to where you won't have to mow your own lawn or something.

I like the idea of more countries having a middle class and investing in their own countries. Remittances matter. Sure, we can just let drug cartels and corrupt governments suck up U.S. cash, but funneling it to families in exchange for work is a better deal IMO.
Then why are you against free trade of goods?
 
That is wildly unrelated to the post you responded to! You obviously didn't click the link provided.
The link who provided? Yours on immigration, mine on "no fear access? My statement about the teenagers goes to what I consider a stereotype of the young immigrant who is unskilled and speaks no English. Like another poster's "illiterate peasants." I may not know much but I'm pretty sure I know more young Mexicans than you do.

There are no labor shortages in the low-skilled job market. We have a crazy number of unemployed people in this country with few job skills, there is absolutely no reason to import such workers from abroad.

"We" are not importing them. They are coming. To anyone low-skilled I have some advice: Get some freakin' skills. Unskilled doesn't have to be a permanent condition.

If things can be manufactured there more efficiently then they should be. That's how those countries will progress into the 1st World.
Cheaper, you mean? Outsourced to countries with cheaper labor. Whether things are outsourced officially to other countries our outsourced in effect - by relying on foreign labor inside our borders - the net effect is the same. Fewer American jobs (presumably).

That wouldn't even count as a sanctuary city in the USA. It's not even close.
I don't know about that. You haven't cited any detailed accounts (or any accounts) that we could use to evaluate that claim.

You've made clear what kind of immigration policy you'd like. You think wages and working conditions are unacceptably high for low-skilled workers in the USA, and thus you wish to import more to further glut the already glutted low-skilled job market and depress wages to where you won't have to mow your own lawn or something.
We don't import them. They export themselves. If you ever have a chance take a look at the border. Any immigration policy that does not take that into account is a fool's errand. And I'm not saying U.S. wages are "unacceptably" high, I'm saying they are high enough to have driven many jobs overseas.

You're making this about me but you don't really know where I stand on policy.

Then why are you against free trade of goods?
Case in point: Cite anything that shows I'm against free trade of goods. You're making it up.
 
The link who provided? Yours on immigration, mine on "no fear access?

It was a link to a Canadian government web site to see if you are eligible to immigrate to Canada.

How on earth could you possibly be confused about that? It's quite pointless to discuss this any further with you when you clearly are not making even a token effort to discuss this issue in good faith.
 
I am worried about them depressing wages.

OK. I realize the Wall Street Journal is biased so take this however skeptically you want. This claim is frequently supported by a study conducted for an immigration-control think thank. The estimated effect on high-school dropouts was a 2 percent to 5 percent drop in wages - so $9.80 or $9.50 an hour. The study looked only at cost; benefits, if any, were not analyzed. And, big caveat, this was immigration in general.

Does Immigration Suppress Wages? It’s Not So Simple

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/06/01/does-immigration-suppress-wages-its-not-so-simple/

I am also worried about them being abused because they do not feel like they can turn to authorities.
Yes, quite a lot of this goes on. It's one reason local police in many jurisdictions have a policy of not asking about immigration status.

I am also worried about them being demonized by politicians when the real problem is the employers, not the workers.
The WSJ article cited above led with the fact that Rick Santorum blamed legal immigrants along with illegal ones when he stumped for "tough" immigration policy. I guess I figure that the people who are going to hate illegal immigrants already hate them. When a kid told me, "Miss, they think we're all criminals," he cited "rich people up north." The kid is probably a citizen, but when many of your family members aren't some statements sound a lot like straight-up racism.

The employers who give money to the politicians to keep demonizing their workers so that they know they can't turn to authorities.
Do you think that's it? In my state private prisons helped draft an immigration bill. Businesses that transport, feed and house lots of people stand to gain from roundups.
 
It was a link to a Canadian government web site to see if you are eligible to immigrate to Canada.

How on earth could you possibly be confused about that? It's quite pointless to discuss this any further with you when you clearly are not making even a token effort to discuss this issue in good faith.

Yes, duh, I figured that out eventually.

How is it good faith for you to basically make up "my" immigration policy? I don't have one. I did like McCain-Kennedy at the time; I liked Jon Kyl's follow up. I thought those bills signaled this country's willingness to deal realistically with the issue. But those bills brought out a lot of haters - vicious people, not the merely uncomfortable. In that latter group, the only consensus seems to be "they shouldn't be here." They are here. There is enforcement at the border. Now what? I'm espousing pragmatism, not ideology.
 
Question 1: exactly what kind of wall are you talking about?
Trump's magic wall.

The more I think about his wall the more I'm reminded of Yes, Prime Minister:
At the moment we have a magic wand. It is called Trident. No one understands anything about it except that it will cost 15 billion, which means that it must be wonderful. Magical. We just have to write the cheque, and then we can all relax. But if people in the government start talking about it, eventually they will start thinking about it. Then they will realise the problems, the flaws in the reasoning. Result: the nation gets anxious.
 
The United States apparently has a very quirky (and dismal) history on immigration. This is a passage from an article in the current New Yorker, "Citizen Khan," June 6 and 13, 2016 p 78). The article is about a man named Zarif Khan, an Afghani immigrant who settled in Wyoming in 1909. In the article immigration is really just a side issue and only came up because, Khan was made a citizen in 1925 only to have his citizenship revoked the following year (he was not considered legally 'white.')

The first naturalization law in the United States was passed in 1790, one year into George Washington’s first term as President. It established that only “free white persons” were eligible to become citizens, a constraint designed to exclude Native Americans and slaves. After the Civil War, that law was changed to extend eligibility to people of African descent. As a result, beginning in 1870, those petitioning for American citizenship had to be either black or white.

That left immigrants from Asian nations in the lurch—deliberately, as Congress soon made clear. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act prevented anyone born in China from becoming American. The Immigration Act of 1917 established an “Asiatic Barred Zone”: a region, encompassing dozens of countries, from the Middle East to Melanesia, whose native citizens could not be naturalized. In theory, such laws were plenty clear. In practice, however, Asians petitioning for citizenship simply contended that they were white. Whether that was true was a matter of heated dispute among ethnologists, anthropologists, political scientists, policymakers, and government officials around the nation.

At the start of the Second World War, the United States was the only developed nation other than Germany to explicitly restrict citizenship on the basis of race—a common ground that became increasingly uncomfortable as Nazi atrocities came to light. Midway through the war, Congress repealed the Chinese exclusion laws. Immediately afterward, it lifted all race-based citizenship requirements. article link
 
And these are the people you want to keep out? The ones with so much hope and faith in the U.S.?
It'd be a steep hill to climb to convince me that someone who is willing to thumb their nose at US law for so many years has any hope or faith in the US. Even so, if it could be shown to me that they have "so much hope and faith in the US," let me tell you all about how many ***** I would give, based on the aforementioned nose-thumbing.
 
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.
Putting aside, for the moment, the fact that Mexican citizens DO need a visa to visit Canada, I don't think you even know what a visa actually is.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom