Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Immigration Policy?

199 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

"President Trump on Tuesday appeared to endorse a sweeping immigration deal that would eventually grant millions of undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, saying he would be willing to “take the heat” politically for an approach that many of his hard-line supporters have long viewed as unacceptable.

The president made the remarks during an extended meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats who are weighing a shorter-term agreement that would extend legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Mr. Trump has said such a deal must be accompanied by new money for a border wall and measures to limit immigrants from bringing family members into the country in the future, conditions he repeated during the meeting on Tuesday.

But in backing a broader immigration measure, Mr. Trump was giving a rare public glimpse of an impulse he has expressed privately to advisers and lawmakers — the desire to preside over a more far-reaching solution to the status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living and working in the United States....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/politics/trump-daca-immigration.html

Isn't really doesn't matter what Trump thinks or says because I believe he will sign anything.   This is what he meant by 'take the heat';   I.e. it was code for 'figure out a compromise that will upset many in BOTH of your bases,  and I'll sign it'.    

Lets see the GOP and Dem Congressional leaders can do this.    Frankly I have more faith in Ryan to get some hard line GOP members of the House to agree to a compromise (e.g. visas for Dreamers),  than I do Pelosi to get hard line Dems (e.g. Dems ONLY willing to vote for a pure-DACA bill) to agree. 

But if both Ryan and Pelosi can get a majority of their members to agree,  they wouldn't need the hardliners.  As for the Senate,  I think they can agree on a compromise bill.

Of course the only worry with Trump is that any funding for border-security has to look like funding for a 'wall'.   But even if NOT,   I can't see Trump vetoing a compromise bill.   (but again,  who knows with that clown).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Jan 9 2018, 6:22 pm ET

Birth tourism brings Russian baby boom to Miami

"...for a growing number of Russian women, the draw isn't sunny beaches or pulsing nightclubs. It's U.S. citizenship for their newborn children.

In Moscow, it's a status symbol to have a Miami-born baby, and social media is full of Russian women boasting of their little americantsy.

...Donald Trump has indicated he is opposed to so-called chain migration, which gives U.S. citizens the right to sponsor relatives, because of recent terror attacks. And as a candidate, he called for an end to birthright citizenship, declaring it in one of his first policy papers the "biggest magnet for illegal immigration."

"You have to get rid of it," he said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "They're having a baby and all of a sudden — nobody knows — the baby is here. You have no choice."

In a twist, as the Daily Beast first reported, condo buildings that bear the Trump name are the most popular for the out-of-town obstetric patients, although the units are subleased from the individual owners and it's not clear if building management is aware.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

-_-

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mr6666 said:
 
Jan 9 2018, 6:22 pm ET

Birth tourism brings Russian baby boom to Miami

"...for a growing number of Russian women, the draw isn't sunny beaches or pulsing nightclubs. It's U.S. citizenship for their newborn children.

In Moscow, it's a status symbol to have a Miami-born baby, and social media is full of Russian women boasting of their little americantsy.

...Donald Trump has indicated he is opposed to so-called chain migration, which gives U.S. citizens the right to sponsor relatives, because of recent terror attacks. And as a candidate, he called for an end to birthright citizenship, declaring it in one of his first policy papers the "biggest magnet for illegal immigration."

"You have to get rid of it," he said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "They're having a baby and all of a sudden — nobody knows — the baby is here. You have no choice."

In a twist, as the Daily Beast first reported, condo buildings that bear the Trump name are the most popular for the out-of-town obstetric patients, although the units are subleased from the individual owners and it's not clear if building management is aware.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/birth-tourism-brings-russian-baby-boom-miami-n836121

-_-

 

Apparently not all anchor babies have mothers from Mexico or other Latin American countries.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" Federal immigration agents descended on dozens of 7-Eleven convenience stores across the country before daybreak on Wednesday, arresting undocumented workers and demanding paperwork from managers, in what the Trump administration described as its largest enforcement operation against employers so far. ......

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/us/7-eleven-raids-ice.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

Bill KristolVerified account @BillKristol 1h1 hour ago

 
 

Donald Trump: Tough on immigrants working at 7-Elevens, soft on wealthy Russians coming here to give birth.

 

:rolleyes:

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mr6666 said:

" Federal immigration agents descended on dozens of 7-Eleven convenience stores across the country before daybreak on Wednesday, arresting undocumented workers and demanding paperwork from managers, in what the Trump administration described as its largest enforcement operation against employers so far. ......

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/10/us/7-eleven-raids-ice.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

 

Bill KristolVerified account @BillKristol 1h1 hour ago

 
 

Donald Trump: Tough on immigrants working at 7-Elevens, soft on wealthy Russians coming here to give birth.

 

:rolleyes:

This is like when he admitted only the poor muslims will be affected by his travel ban and the rich ones will be able to come here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gershwin fan said:

This is like when he admitted only the poor muslims will be affected by his travel ban and the rich ones will be able to come here.

The Feds should go after employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and this is what many employer do (since the employer can abuse these workers by doing thing like NOT paying overtime,  paying under the table,    etc...). 

I really don't understand the crying about going after these employers.   They hire illegal immigrants to keep wages low for legal workers.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The Feds should go after employers that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and this is what many employer do (since the employer can abuse these workers by doing thing like NOT paying overtime,  paying under the table,    etc...). 

I really don't understand the crying about going after these employers.   They hire illegal immigrants to keep wages low for legal workers.     

 

I don't disagree with that point. It's the hypocrisy of him doing one thing while letting the rich get away with the same thing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why some Republicans aren't all that enthusiastic about a crack down

on certain illegal immigrants. They consider themselves friends to the small

businessman, even if the small businessman is hiring illegals as workers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump

 

DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military.

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Peter AlexanderVerified account @PeterAlexander 14h14 hours ago

Peter Alexander Retweeted Donald J. Trump

In fact, DACA’s alive because a federal judge ruled against the Trump administration last week

& the federal gov’t said it would resume accepting requests for DACA renewals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming 'dreamers' are granted legal status and an eventual pathway to citizenship,   is there still a need for sanctuary cities?  (or sanctuary states, like CA).

If so,  why?    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'We Are Not That Country': Rebuking Trump Policies, Judge Orders Immigrant Rights Advocate Freed

"It ought not be—and it has never before been—that those who have lived without incident in this country for years are subjected to treatment we associate with regimes we revile as unjust."

" In a strongly-worded ruling that condemned the Trump administration's immigration policies, a federal judge ordered that immigrant rights activist Ravi Ragbir be released from jail on Monday, more than two weeks after he was abruptly detained during a routine check-in with immigration officials. ...

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/01/29/we-are-not-country-rebuking-trump-policies-judge-orders-immigrant-rights-advocate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some immigrants, deportation means death

" President Donald Trump continues to crack down on undocumented immigrants, including those that have not been convicted of a violent crime. But the U.S. does not monitor the fate of deportees, who have been kidnapped, extorted, sexually assaulted or even killed.

Sarah Stillman, who tracked some of these cases for The New Yorker, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss what she found. ....

...a woman named Laura who had been living in the U.S. for a very long time. She had U.S. citizen children. ...

... She literally said to Border Patrol and her last words, when I’m sent back and killed my blood will be on your hands. And in fact that is exactly what happened. She was sent back across the bridge and a week later she was found dead. ...

"... some of these patterns were absolutely there under the Obama administration and we did see a large number of deportations. But there was also prosecutorial discretion and clear priorities for who should be sent back. And so I think by the end of Obama’s term there really was a focus on people with serious felony offenses and we’ve seen that go out the window.

And also these new categories of people who facing threat. So we’ve got DACA, the young people who oftentimes have lived here for much of their lives many of whom are now adults with their own children who are now facing being sent back.

And we’ve also got temporary protected status, people from El Salvador and a number of other countries that thought that they were going to be here safely for a while and are also being sent. ...

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/for-some-immigrants-deportation-means-death?utm_source=frontline&utm_term=social&utm_source=TWITTER&utm_medium=social&utm_term=20180129&utm_content=1311408538&linkId=47540660

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senate Begins Immigration Debate, With the Outcome Unknown

 

..........the Senate on Monday began an open-ended debate on immigration — an exceedingly rare step that, in effect, will allow senators to attempt to build a bill from scratch on the Senate floor.

The highly unusual debate, expected to unfold throughout the week, will test whether a series of legislative concepts and proposals championed by President Trump and a variety of Republicans and Democrats can garner 60 votes, the threshold for a measure to pass the Senate. No one has any idea how it will turn out.

“Whoever gets to 60 wins,” Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, told reporters last week....

About 690,000 young immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children are shielded from deportation under an Obama-era initiative known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Another 1.1 million young immigrants are eligible for DACA but did not apply. But Mr. Trump suspended the initiative in September and gave lawmakers until March 5 to come up with a replacement that would protect the young immigrants, known as Dreamers, after proposed legislation called the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM Act. .....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/12/us/politics/senate-immigration-debate.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2018 at 7:39 PM, mr6666 said:

and a number of other countries that thought that they were going to be here safely for a while

How long is 'for a while'?   In some cases the so called temporary status is over a decade.   I would hope any honest person would agree that that isn't 'for a while' or temporary. 

But I do agree there needs to be increased funding to hire more judges so that immigration hearing will be conducted quicker and that the really deserving illegal immigrants are granted permanent status.    But the Dem do NOT wish for this and never did.   More judges and quicker hearings will result in MORE deportations done on a more real-time basis and there are no illegal immigrants that should be deported according to the pro-illegal-immigration activist.

I.e. the 'old' system of living in the shadows was working well,  since there was little to no enforcement, especially after Obama changed how ICE operated once he was a lame-duck and put into place DACA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Great Senate Immigration Debate That Wasn't

Mitch McConnell promised an open, freewheeling process to finally resolve the fate of DACA and the Dreamers. But amid more partisan bickering, the attempt has stalled before it even began.

........“I defy you to find worse debates in recent history than those over immigration. They are ugly, bloody debates chock-full of highly partisan social issues that seek only to divide and don’t bring anyone together.”

At the heart of this procedural stalemate is a competing tension familiar to members of both parties: Lawmakers like to call publicly for an open legislative process, but they don’t like having to take the risky political votes that come with it.....

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-great-senate-immigration-debate-that-wasnt/553253/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orange County in CA is suing the state of CA because they wish to work with ICE to deport criminal illegal immigrants (e.g. report them to ICE if they have been arrested with is against the new CA law).

About time.    If CA can defy the Feds,   county officials can defy CA government officials.

We do NOT wish to release criminal illegal immigrants back into our communities.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Orange County in CA is suing the state of CA because they wish to work with ICE to deport criminal illegal immigrants (e.g. report them to ICE if they have been arrested with is against the new CA law).

About time.    If CA can defy the Feds,   county officials can defy CA government officials.

We do NOT wish to release criminal illegal immigrants back into our communities.

I'm not defending one side or the other here. I think this decision should be left up to the local voters (you and other Californians). But I'm seeking some clarification on some specifics that seem to get jumbled in this debate.

Say you have a guy (let's call him Ramon) who has come over into California illegally. Now when you (or others) refer to Ramon as a criminal illegal immigrant, are you referring to him as a "criminal" because he's here illegally (he's broken immigration law), or do you reserve the additional "criminal" sobriquet for those illegal immigrants who have a previous criminal record in Mexico (or wherever they came from), and/or an illegal immigrant who has committed a crime here in the United States?

From what I understand, sanctuary cities do not contact ICE if an arrestee is a non-citizen. But that doesn't mean the arrestee is set free, does it? I mean to say, Ramon is still held for trial for whatever he was arrested for, isn't he? And if this is the case, Ramon will serve out his sentence in a US prison, correct? But if they contact ICE, won't ICE then come and take custody of Ramon, and deport him at the earliest convenience? And if so, doesn't that mean Ramon gets away with whatever crime he committed in the US, since he'll be free once back in Mexico/wherever?

I understand the reluctance to spend US tax dollars on housing illegals in our prisons, but if the alternative is setting them free back in their home country, how is justice done for the victims of Ramon's crimes?

As I said, I'm not on any side here, just looking for clarification on what's trying to be accomplished. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I'm not defending one side or the other here. I think this decision should be left up to the local voters (you and other Californians). But I'm seeking some clarification on some specifics that seem to get jumbled in this debate.

Say you have a guy (let's call him Ramon) who has come over into California illegally. Now when you (or others) refer to Ramon as a criminal illegal immigrant, are you referring to him as a "criminal" because he's here illegally (he's broken immigration law), or do you reserve the additional "criminal" sobriquet for those illegal immigrants who have a previous criminal record in Mexico (or wherever they came from), and/or an illegal immigrant who has committed a crime here in the United States?

From what I understand, sanctuary cities do not contact ICE if an arrestee is a non-citizen. But that doesn't mean the arrestee is set free, does it? I mean to say, Ramon is still held for trial for whatever he was arrested for, isn't he? And if this is the case, Ramon will serve out his sentence in a US prison, correct? But if they contact ICE, won't ICE then come and take custody of Ramon, and deport him at the earliest convenience? And if so, doesn't that mean Ramon gets away with whatever crime he committed in the US, since he'll be free once back in Mexico/wherever?

I understand the reluctance to spend US tax dollars on housing illegals in our prisons, but if the alternative is setting them free back in their home country, how is justice done for the victims of Ramon's crimes?

As I said, I'm not on any side here, just looking for clarification on what's trying to be accomplished. 

Good questions.    As for what is a 'criminal',   the most common definition is someone that has committed a felony (past of current) or has an outstanding deportation order: (e.g. they had a hearing and it was determined they didn't have justification to stay and released for 30 or so days to get their business in order and then report to be deported but never do).

So a illegal immigrant can be arrested for a crime but the DA decides there isn't enough to hold them for this crime,  but if they had a prior felony that would make them a 'criminal'.    Then there are those that are charged and conflicted and are serving their sentence (Ramon) in a CA jail or prison.    There was no change in policy (by CA or ICE) as it relates to convicted illegal immigrants serving their time in CA jails or prisons.    The change is what happens AFTER they are about to be released.  

CA authorities (police,  sheriff,  prison officials) will no longer notify ICE that a release of said 'criminal' is pending.   Instead ICE must continually ask.    Is Ramon going to be released on Wednesday?  ICE must also issue a warrant requiring CA authorities to hold the criminal so ICE can pick them up.   Now where I get confused is the timing of this last part but it is my understanding CA has created a very short window.   E.G.  ICE can't issue these warrants 'way ahead of time',  and after CA gets them,  CA will only hold on to the criminal for a very short time (3 days???).    These 'rules' use up additional ICE manpower as well as releasing criminals back into he community when ICE can't meet the CA timelines.

This is why my county supervisors and sheriff,  as well as many city councils in the country,  are suing CA.  The old system worked.    AND it rarely alerted ICE of any NON criminal illegal immigrants.    E.g. Someone picked up and place in jail where the DA decides no changes should be filed that doesn't have a criminal record,  isn't report to ICE.    

 

       

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give immigrants, even those who have come over illegally, the benefit of the doubt. I'm NOT for open borders, but I think we need to seriously streamline the immigration process, because as it is, it takes too long. And I'm also not for "merit" based entry only. Many people in our past who would not have appeared "worthy" on paper turned out to be exceptional Americans, as have their children and grand children. However, if an applicant has a lengthy or violent criminal record, we don't need them. And that would have to be judged on a case by case basis. Ramon, who bounced a check once 10 years ago, shouldn't be lumped in with Javier, who's a three-times convicted rapist or murderer. 

My good will disappears if an immigrant is arrested in the US and convicted. If it's for a non-violent crime, like petty theft or DUI, then deport them immediately. If it's for a violent crime, then incarcerate them for the length of their sentence, then deport them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I give immigrants, even those who have come over illegally, the benefit of the doubt. I'm NOT for open borders, but I think we need to seriously streamline the immigration process, because as it is, it takes too long. And I'm also not for "merit" based entry only. Many people in our past who would not have appeared "worthy" on paper turned out to be exceptional Americans, as have their children and grand children. However, if an applicant has a lengthy or violent criminal record, we don't need them. And that would have to be judged on a case by case basis. Ramon, who bounced a check once 10 years ago, shouldn't be lumped in with Javier, who's a three-times convicted rapist or murderer. 

My good will disappears if an immigrant is arrested in the US and convicted. If it's for a non-violent crime, like petty theft or DUI, then deport them immediately. If it's for a violent crime, then incarcerate them for the length of their sentence, then deport them. 

We generally agree.    I still support a merit based system since given the choice between a potential immigrant that speaks English and has a college degree over one that doesn't,  why not select the former over the latter. 

Of course this will reduce the number of unskilled \ poorly educated immigrants but part time employment for citizens 16 - 18, as well, as those in college,  is way down.    In addition when adults take on these jobs as full time jobs,  even with the higher minimum wage in places like CA and WA, it increases the need for government to assist these workers with benefits.    The less full time,  minimum wage workers (especially those with kids), the less need for government subsidies. 

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So CA state officials admit that over 1 million illegal immigrants have applied for a CA illegal immigrant drivers licence.   

Yea,  and illegal immigration isn't a problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2018 at 5:09 PM, LawrenceA said:

ICE Agents Hurl Pregnant Immigrant Over Mexican Border To Prevent Birth On U.S. Soil

doryqqxskvuwkcmkxcqu.jpg

https://www.theonion.com/ice-agents-hurl-pregnant-immigrant-over-mexican-border-1822307567

:lol:

This may be fake news, the photo seems to have come from a social media site.  Those guys simply can't do that because it would require a great deal of force judging by the sheer height.  Think the agents are CATCHING the lady after trying to scale the wall. Her limbs are pointing upwards as one would expect from a fall.

Another thing, why is she smiling?

22jp89.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us