Deportation and other Immigration issues

[Minoosh]

Why not? Canada manages, because they actually enforce their immigration laws both at the border and on employers who would hire them. The USA merely lacks the political will, the Dems want future Dem voters and the GOP wants cheap labor.

Canada makes it easier for Mexicans to get in legally. It recently dropped visa requirements. After years in the shadows of the U.S., the writer's friend

U.S. should copy Canada's immigration policies: Guest opinion
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/us_should_copy_canadas_immigra.html

decided to apply for legal entry into Canada. After 18 months and paying approximately $1,500 to the Canadian government, he was granted approval to enter Canada. As soon as he entered the country, the immigrations officer handed him a sheet of paper letting him know he is eligible to sponsor his extended family members into Canada as well. He lives and works in Canada, with all the rights and responsibilities of a permanent resident. After four years, he will be eligible to apply for citizenship. He is relieved to finally be free of the stress and anxiety of living as an "illegal." He loves Canada!

And this:

Canada to lift visa requirements for Mexicans
http://fusion.net/story/236131/canada-to-lift-visa-requirements-for-mexicans/
Anecdotal, sure. I'm open to reading cites you can provide.

Do you think the U.S. doesn't enforce the law at the border? Twenty thousand border agents might disagree. Again, IMO, many Midwesterners underestimate the logistical problems. Plus, Canada has a vastly different strategy if the above article is to believed. I'm sure you have links of your own to support your claims.

 

[Minoosh]

I've always thought too that if only legal citizens could work in the US way fewer illegals would have a desire to sneak over the border. I'd say instead of demonizing these people just trying to make a better life for themselves maybe we crack down more on companies and individuals who hire them.

If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules. It's not a completely undesirable practice - it keeps the cost of goods lower.

I'd be fine letting people stay here and work legally. But then they would have workplace rights, and could then be undercut by another wave of people wiling to work in the shadows at the under-the-table rate.

 

[Aepervius]

If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules. It's not a completely undesirable practice - it keeps the cost of goods lower.

It keeps the cost of those uppity laborer also low and utterly distort the labor and goods market. It is a totally undesirable practice (tax, health care, and various other factor get by passed this way) which is why it is illegal, but since corporation and politician blow job each other in many western countries, it is never really punished leaving only the local resident shafted.

 

[WildCat]

Canada makes it easier for Mexicans to get in legally. It recently dropped visa requirements. After years in the shadows of the U.S., the writer's friend

U.S. should copy Canada's immigration policies: Guest opinion
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/07/us_should_copy_canadas_immigra.html

And this:

Canada to lift visa requirements for Mexicans
http://fusion.net/story/236131/canada-to-lift-visa-requirements-for-mexicans/
Anecdotal, sure. I'm open to reading cites you can provide.

Do you think the U.S. doesn't enforce the law at the border? Twenty thousand border agents might disagree. Again, IMO, many Midwesterners underestimate the logistical problems. Plus, Canada has a vastly different strategy if the above article is to believed. I'm sure you have links of your own to support your claims.

Canada requires immigrants to have cash to enter legally. They don't allow poor, low-skilled workers who will immediately apply for welfare benefits nor do they allow illegals to stay.

 

[WildCat]

If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules. It's not a completely undesirable practice - it keeps the cost of goods lower.

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

 

[sunmaster14]

I totally do not understand this perception that the government is not monitoring "the border." And the phrase "turned away at the border" conveys a misleading image, IMO. People penetrate the border and may be caught sooner rather than later, but they are not being greeted at the border and rebuffed.

Much of the border is virtually uninhabited and it includes every kind of terrain - including areas that commonly reach 115 degrees, and where hundreds die each year.

Also: some 50 percent of illegal immigrants did not cross illegally (several sources on this); and, border security has probably significantly accelerated Latin American population growth in the past couple of decades. People who would come to work seasonally could no longer easily come and go, so more families started coming and putting down roots.

And President George W. Bush got plenty of criticism from Republican candidates, though not from McCain, since the two had very similar views: Allow those here to register, pay a fine and stay, pending background checks. Reagan presided over a massive amnesty program.

You can't seal this country up like a tub of Tupperware. In my experience, people who live near border areas (and perhaps coastal areas) have much more realistic images and expectations than those in the center of the country.

Without getting into the merits of mass deportation or "open borders" (whatever those are), I can promise you that many people have no idea of the logistical issues involved.

I have explained to you several times why this is incorrect. With math and everything. And yet you persist. As the saying goes, it is hard to reason somebody out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.

 

[Minoosh]

Canada requires immigrants to have cash to enter legally. They don't allow poor, low-skilled workers who will immediately apply for welfare benefits nor do they allow illegals to stay.

If Canada requires no visa, then those people wouldn't be illegal. And many illegal immigrants have mad skills.

 

[Minoosh]

I have explained to you several times why this is incorrect. With math and everything. And yet you persist. As the saying goes, it is hard to reason somebody out of a position that he didn't reason himself into in the first place.

The last person I remember citing this was Ted Cruz. Not that I necessarily believe him, but someone probably did the research. I rebutted your statement at the time but can't go looking for it at the moment.

What figure do you put it at? With cites and everything?

 

[Minoosh]

It keeps the cost of those uppity laborer also low and utterly distort the labor and goods market. It is a totally undesirable practice (tax, health care, and various other factor get by passed this way) which is why it is illegal, but since corporation and politician blow job each other in many western countries, it is never really punished leaving only the local resident shafted.

I have a different perspective - I think the remittances have an up side, not just for Mexican families but by potentially encouraging those families and others to invest in Mexico, so that working illegally in the U.S. is less appealing. Those immigrants BTW do pay tax.

But my world view has room enough to acknowledge your points as well.

 

[Belz...]

the Dems want future Dem voters and the GOP wants cheap labor.

Bipartisan exploitation!

 

[sunmaster14]

The last person I remember citing this was Ted Cruz. Not that I necessarily believe him, but someone probably did the research. I rebutted your statement at the time but can't go looking for it at the moment.

You didn't rebut my statement any more than you could rebut the statement that 25% is less than 50%. It is undisputed that the majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico and that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are from Mexico or Central and South America (the numbers were 56% and 80%, respectively in 2006). Assuming that US visas are granted to citizens of other countries at rates roughly proportional to the population, and, except for Mexican border crossing cards, that seems to be the case, then it is nonsensical to believe that anywhere near 50% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays. This is the visa statistics page of the State Department. For, 2015, there were 10,891,745 non-immigrant visas issued, of which 1,479,109 were for Mexicans. Of course, that latter number includes 1,166,668 border crossing cards (BCC), which are supposedly issued only to Mexicans who have very strong ties to Mexico and whom the State Department has good reason to go back to Mexico. If that in fact is not the case, then I would consider that to be an illegal border crossing, not a visa overstay. Regardless, even with BCCs included (and I think it makes no sense to include them), Mexican visas represent 13.5% of visas, yet Mexicans represent 56% of illegal immigrants in the US. It is quite obvious that visa overstays cannot even come close to accounting for the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico, and therefore the number of illegal immigrants generally, unless people from Mexico overstay their visas, and some huge multiple times the number that other visitors do.

What figure do you put it at? With cites and everything?

Well, using the data I linked to, I see roughly 600,000 visas (excluding Mexican border crossing cards) issued to people from Mexico and Central America. This is out of 9,725,000 total (once again, excluding Mexican border crossing cards). So 6.1% of visas are issued to Mexican and Central Americans, but they account for well over half of the illegal immigrants - say 75%. I'll assume uniform visa overstays across nationalities, since I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case, and I've never heard anybody suggest otherwise. Then if X% of the illegal immigrants were visa overstays spread uniformly across the world, and 100% of the rest (which is almost certainly too high) were due to illegal border crossings by immigrants from Mexico and Central America, we would expect the percentage of illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America to be 6.1%*X%+100%*(100%-X%) = 100% - 93.9%*X, which would have to match 75%. This gives X% = 26.6%. Of course, this number could be much lower if illegal border crossings weren't exclusively being done by immigrants from Mexico and Central America. In any case, X% can't be anywhere near 50% unless for some reason Mexicans and Central Americans were vastly more likely to overstay their visas than any other visitors. In which case, of course, we should restrict the number of visas we grant to people from those countries.

 

[newyorkguy]

If those immigrants are willing to work harder for less money employers will find a way around the rules...

That's not true, or at least it doesn't have to be true. Once caught employing undocumented workers the company could be required to enroll in the Social Security Number Verification Service and it works very well. Huge fines are a deterrent. From an earlier quote:

The company is supposed to terminate the illegal workers and clean up its hiring practices, for example by re-training personnel, enrolling in E-Verify, and using the Social Security Number Verification Service (SSNVS)

The Obama Administration has reduced ICE enforcement action on employers. Why that is I don't know. But I prefer work place enforcement to raids, wall building or stepped up border enforcement. Work place enforcement is much less costly and in the long run will be much more effective. The illegal workers come here to find jobs and earn income. If they can't do that they won't come.

Undocumented immigrants probably pay more in taxes than they receive in any kind of benefits:

The U.S. Social Security Administration estimated that in 2013 undocumented immigrants—and their employers—paid $13 billion in payroll taxes alone for benefits they will never get. They can receive schooling and emergency medical care, but not welfare or food stamps. link

 

[Minoosh]

Assuming that US visas are granted to citizens of other countries at rates roughly proportional to the population,

Why would you assume that?

and, except for Mexican border crossing cards, that seems to be the case,

"Seems to be the case"? That's your authority?

then it is nonsensical to believe that anywhere near 50% of illegal immigrants are visa overstays.

Rubio says 40% of illegal immigrants stayed in the U.S. after their visas expired
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/jul/29/marco-rubio/rubio-says-40-percent-illegal-immigrants-are-overs/

Rated mostly true.

Nearly 500K foreigners overstayed visas in 2015
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/19/immigration-visa-overstays-department-of-homeland-security-report/79026708/

USA Today puts the illegals-here-because-they-overstayed-visas here at 40 percent.

Mexican visas represent 13.5% of visas, yet Mexicans represent 56% of illegal immigrants in the US. It is quite obvious that visa overstays cannot even come close to accounting for the number of illegal immigrants from Mexico, and therefore the number of illegal immigrants generally, unless people from Mexico overstay their visas, and some huge multiple times the number that other visitors do.

You are failing to account for the fact that visa overstays would have a cumulative effect over time. How many overstay their visa in a given year is just one piece of it.

I'll assume uniform visa overstays across nationalities, since I don't see any reason why that shouldn't be the case, and I've never heard anybody suggest otherwise.

Seriously? You'll assume because you've never heard differently? As long as we're going on assumptions, how about assuming that visa overstays would be more likely among people who have extended families in the U.S.? Maybe because of a 2,000-mile long land border? I'm suggesting an issue of critical mass: Large communities of Mexicans and other Spanish speakers, with complicated mixtures of legal and illegal family members, might provide cover and increase motivation to overstay.

In any case, X% can't be anywhere near 50% unless for some reason Mexicans and Central Americans were vastly more likely to overstay their visas than any other visitors.

I've given you one possible reason.

In which case, of course, we should restrict the number of visas we grant to people from those countries.

I don't see any "of course" there. I am not afraid of a Mexican invasion. Per my experience many Mexicans like Mexico, and if there was more freedom of movement they might come and go in response to market demands for labor. But any chance of expanding legal avenues for temporary workers is held hostage by the continuing stalemate over comprehensive reform.

 

[Minoosh]

The Obama Administration has reduced ICE enforcement action on employers. Why that is I don't know. But I prefer work place enforcement to raids, wall building or stepped up border enforcement. Work place enforcement is much less costly and in the long run will be much more effective. The illegal workers come here to find jobs and earn income. If they can't do that they won't come.

Being something of a seasonal worker myself I've had to provide ironclad documentation of my right to work legally in the United States probably 6 times in the last 6 years. Employers demanded to see my actual Social Security card (issued when I was 13, more than 40 years ago). I had to get a new card, and to get that I needed a new birth certificate, and to do that I don't really remember the hoops. Maybe a couple of expired passports did the trick.

With the amount of money that must be involved in under-the-table transactions, someone will find a way to tick the boxes so that the documentation bar is cleared. Until we all have tamper-proof biometric ID, that is.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Why not? Canada manages, because they actually enforce their immigration laws both at the border and on employers who would hire them. The USA merely lacks the political will, the Dems want future Dem voters and the GOP wants cheap labor.

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. Eliminate the jobs and you will see what Romney called "self decoration". That is what the chart above proves.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Being something of a seasonal worker myself I've had to provide ironclad documentation of my right to work legally in the United States probably 6 times in the last 6 years. Employers demanded to see my actual Social Security card (issued when I was 13, more than 40 years ago). I had to get a new card, and to get that I needed a new birth certificate, and to do that I don't really remember the hoops. Maybe a couple of expired passports did the trick.

With the amount of money that must be involved in under-the-table transactions, someone will find a way to tick the boxes so that the documentation bar is cleared. Until we all have tamper-proof biometric ID, that is.

You probably work for companies that are large enough to have in-house HR. Smaller companies who contract for you company are probably not so careful, such as ht cleaning crew and grounds crew.

 

[newyorkguy]

With the amount of money that must be involved in under-the-table transactions, someone will find a way to tick the boxes so that the documentation bar is cleared. Until we all have tamper-proof biometric ID, that is.

I don't think we want to give up on workplace enforcement just based on an assumption it won't work. I'm certain many employers will cooperate. A company I worked for once had maybe 15%-20% undocumented workers on the assembly line. Most were hired on the recommendation of (documented) friends or relatives already working there. It was usually a case of, "They really need a job. They are a good worker. Please hire them." And they usually were good workers. They were probably illegal? Ummm...

It was just something that came about. There was no plan to it. In the cyber world every action has an evil motive -- -- but in the real world things don't always work that way.

It didn't save our company any money either, undocumented workers were paid the same scale as everyone else. Once INS got serious, they came into the facility, they took people into custody, they levied a large fine, the owners decided as a matter of policy we would no longer employ any undocumented worker. It went from having no consequences to becoming a problem.

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.

 

[Minoosh]

You probably work for companies that are large enough to have in-house HR. Smaller companies who contract for you company are probably not so careful, such as ht cleaning crew and grounds crew.

Not especially big. A couple were tutoring agencies with 2 owners and no employees, just contractors. They were as picky as anyone else.

 

[Minoosh]

I don't think we want to give up on workplace enforcement just based on an assumption it won't work.

My issue with workplace enforcement is not that it won't work. It's that I don't care if it works. I'm not worried about Mexicans stealing jobs.

 

[WildCat]

If Canada requires no visa, then those people wouldn't be illegal. And many illegal immigrants have mad skills.

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.