Can someone explain what is going on? Why would America consider giving Amnesty to people who willfully broke the law. Not to mention they have not been vetted.
Also, for TPS don’t understand why these people are effectively given PR. The whole point of TPS is to provide temporary refuge but apparently the people who got TPS because of an earthquake decades ago are still here.
- Amazon newton12OPI do want to add that this seems very unfair to me. The fact is that any country (including Mexico) would be unhappy if millions of low skilled workers came in illegally and displaced jobs in the local economy. Seems to me that all the relatively wealthy Americans (middle class and up) would benefit from this since it will help lower wages for low skilled jobs. Meanwhile, the poorer Americans are hung out to dry.
- That is absurd. Undocumented immigrants have broken laws that you are bound to protect as a citizen. So have many companies that likely willfully hired illegals and exploited them.
This is not about economics. If the economics made sense, America should expand its immigration. It’s about establishing a set of laws and enforcing them. Democracy cannot work if people just decide to ignore laws they don’t like and if the government does not enforce its own laws.
Also, not enforcing immigration laws is the same as open borders. You are basically saying that anyone who comes to America should be allowed to do it as long as they are able to get jobs. This is patently absurd. Unchecked immigration will kill wages and lead to widespread abuse.
I don’t understand how people can think like this and I suppose that is why I made this post in the first place. Why is it not important to you that laws are broken?
- So really you believe America should have open borders and anyone should be allowed in? And you think this will be fine? Without someone controlling the knob, there won’t be a huge influx hurting Americans and the economy?
Also, I am not asking whether you think the law is correct, but whether it is okay to selectively enforce laws based on whether some people like them or not?
- I believe governments should not control our movements or control populations.
In a supposed democracy it is ok for people to argue and agitate for changes to laws - or the abolition of them.
Immigration enforcement is already selective and Democrats and Republicans focusing on the border (when only half of undocumented immigrants come that way) is an attempt by the government to use xenophobia to selectively repress certain kinds of undocumented immigrants.
- @Credit Karma there are two separate arguments here.
1. One is about what legal immigration should look like and how much role the Government should play. We can argue on the different ideas here all day. This is a good debate to have.
2. The second one is about agreeing on the laws. As a society, we are unified by our firm commitment to the constitution and all the laws. Without this, America cannot work. The fact is that people coming here are coming illegally. They are breaking US laws. You can argue that the laws are xenophobic, but there are many ways for people to change them. You can vote, lobby, etc. But to disregard laws just cause you don’t like them is the slippery slope that leads to the downfall of civilization as we know it. You are u undermining democracy itself and it doesn’t matter whether you think your intentions are good in that case.
- Your point 2 makes no sense. Yes it is in fact a law - a law that should be dumped like Jim Crow was and like drug laws should be. It’s absurd in the context of an online debate to try and say this is a separate argument. Of course it’s the law - we don’t have power on Blind to change that, so we can only discuss our view of the worth of the law.
Second, hiding behind the “it’s a law” line is even more absurd because it’s a civil law - it’s not “illegal” to overstay a visa or apply for asylum or just cross the border. Not having the right documentation is the violation. Smoking a joint is more “illegal” than not having documentation- people shouldn’t have their lives messed up by the government for doing that either. “We have to follow orders” is not a good position in discussing the value or lack of value of a law.
The third absurdity is that the Democratic and Republican administrations have increased immigration repression over the past few administrations (with no effect on general increases and decreases In undocumented migration rates btw). So when Trump complains of an “invasion” caravan he’s demonizing asylum seekers and preventing them from applying - which is totally legal until he tried to change the process.
- If a legal immigrant overstays their visa, their are not only deported but also banned from coming to the US for 5-10 years. Somehow the standard is different for illegal immigrants? Instead these guys feel entitled to citizenship after breaking the rules.
Also, again, I think you are absolutely missing my point. I am saying we should follow the rules but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss them or fix them when they are broken. But your solution is let’s just ignore the rules and encourage more people to ignore them undermining democracy itself.
Also, where America fails is that it does not provide a clear distinction between asylum seekers and economic migrants. Most people coming here are coming for better economic opportunities. That should not qualify someone from asylum. Someone coming from Syria should get asylum, not someone from Mexico. Also, illegal immigrants have not come in via asylum. They have just silently overstayed their welcome or illegally crossed into the border.
- Also, to be very clear, I am not saying that immigration should be lowered. I am for more immigration. All the data points towards this being helpful. But, the problem I have is with people saying that is OK to break the rules and encouraging it. Illegal immigrants broke the law. No it’s not a criminal law but laws should be fairly enforced, otherwise they loose credibility. I think it’s fair to give the DACA kids a chance to stay here, but everyone else should be penalized in some way. Also, the laws should be enforced so that more people don’t come in legally. Also, instead they should have a visa for these people because clearly the US economy needs them.
- Dell / Eng//////moreDACA kids 'wilfully' broke the law at eg. age 2 when they entered the country?
- I disagree. Every nation has limited resources. People coming in will consume those resources and may not add enough back. For example, I imagine most illegal immigrants will consume some form of healthcare. But how many themselves will be doctors or medical researches? Also, Illegal immigrants go to Public schools don’t they? They are literally taking away resources that would otherwise be spent on Americans.
- Is robbing a bank zero sum? Technically, the robber would spend that and create more jobs too, and the bank may have some insurance. In any case, the point I am trying to make is a moral one, not an economic one. It’s about benefiting from something you had no right to by doing something illegal. Millions of people all over the world want to come here but don’t get to. Why should the people who broke the law get a chance over them? Even if these illegal immigrants aren’t taking from the US economy, they are potentially taking from other immigrants who would have been deemed more worthy.
- Actually, you’re the one making the economic argument. It just happens to be an argument that economists disagree with.
As far as a moral argument goes, I can’t possibly see where you would have the higher ground.
I think the only argument you might have traction on is a practical one. Countries have laws and those laws should be followed. I’m with you there.
- I updated my comment. I do think immigration can be framed as a zero some game. For example, looking only at legal immigration, you can easily say it is since there are a fixed number of slots and immigrants are competing for those. But illegal immigrants don’t count into this slot. But a large number of illegal immigrants hurts the attitude towards immigrants in general. Why would US increase legal immigration when 1 million people are coming in illegally every year? On the other hand, if there were no illegal immigrants, the US would adjust its legal immigration to match its economic needs (for example by adding 500k-1million slots instead for legal immigrants).
- Microsoft TrumpWinsIf you want an example of illegal immigration taking its toll on society, go look up the state of the healthcare industry in California. Many illegals use the emergency room for basic healthcare cause they know they won’t be turned away. Also 50% of accidents in LA are hit and runs due to many illegals not having insurance and not wanting to deal with the police. Things like this cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars every year.
- They have been vetted. Well like all people, there are bad seeds. DACA is a special case. These kids came at really young age. Imagine living here since you were 1 years old. We still have to fix immigration system. Congress has been unwilling to do ANYTHING. Even if they decided to kick them out, well, pass a bill. Everyone is using them as political chip.
- There are not a finite number of jobs, there is not as shortage of resources, and immigrants actually create jobs.
The main goal of immigration policy should be to keep out criminals and perhaps limit the rate of immigration to whatever we can absorb from a cultural perspective.
I.e., 100k Chinese immigrants will feel strong pressure to learn English but 100mil of them would pressure the rest of us to learn Mandarin.
But that's a rate of cultural assimilation question there is no issue with jobs. They would create 100 million jobs if that actually happened.
- Yeah everything is awesome in Seattle for everybody...not! Read about the homelessness crisis and how many low income people have been made homes less. And the consequences of that (drug related issues). Also, traffic is now dreadful. Because of huge inflows, it hurt the people at the bottom and everyone else also ended up spending much more on things like housing.
- Homeless people are drug addicts who are poor because they're on drugs. That's the result of a medical industry that gives doctors a bonus for prescribing oxy. Then every city in the West sends their homeless to Seattle because they know our caring mayor Jenny will look after them since Seattle is rolling in money.
Seattle's budget has increased 5x in the last ten years. The city is rich. Homeless people come here because we throw millions and millions of dollars at them. Free housing, free food, free everything they could want. But they just now it all on drugs anyway.
Success story. We should stop flinging millions and millions at homeless people but the fact that we can do that is part of the success story.
- Are you a DACA person? You seem to be really biased. You are simplifying the problem overtly. So apparently in your book all poor people in America are bad and all illegal immigrants are good? Homelessness is multi faced and rent increases are a big part of this. https://www.seattle.gov/homelessness/the-roots-of-the-crisis
- I am stating the facts. You just don't like them. Seattle has seen phenomenal growth and the city is rolling in money.
Seattle's loopy leftie City council doesn't understand that paying homeless people lots of money results in more homeless people. We attract them from all over the West.
As property values went up, so did Seattle's tax revenue, and as tax revenue went up, so did spending on homeless.
Seattle is literally the best city in America for a homeless person. You get a tiny house, lots of great food, supervised injection, everything you could ask for. You can set up a homeless encampment or park your RV in front of somebody's business and do lots of drugs and instead of running you off the city sends people to ask what you need.
- That what, Seattle's spending on homeless has gone through the roof? Seattle's budget shows that clearly. That most homeless are drug addicts? Easy to find that. That other cities are giving out bus tickets to Seattle? Our mayor recently complained.
It would be helpful if you woul call it which part you don't believe and I'll shoot you a link.
- Let’s cut to the crux of it. Can you provide one piece of evidence that says an immigration rate of 10% (or even more that 2-3%) can be absorbed by an economy. Keep in mind, this depends on how large the population is in the first place and how resource rich the country is. For example, increasing from a population of 30k to 33k in a developing country is very different from increasing the population from 300 mil to 330 mil in a developed country.
- Also, housing does hugely contribute to homelessness. Drug addiction is one cause but housing prices are another. And quite often, people become drug addicts after becoming homeless to cope. Here is one proof for the same: gle.com/amp/s/kkkk://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/books/generation-priced-out-investigates-seattles-housing-crisis-and-how-to-solve-it/%3famp=1
- There's lots of affordable housing in the area it's just not in downtown Seattle or Bellevue. You need to move further out.
Seattle council also caused this be refusing permits to build apartment complexes in single family housing neighborhoods.
As if refusing to allow building affordable housing was going to stop the economic growth. Had council authorized all the required building then the city would have grown taller instead of just sprawling further out and housing would be very affordable.
Blame council, not the economic miracle.
- DACA is a thing for a few reasons
For one: plenty of DACA supporters don't think of it as being "against the law", or maybe more accurately they think it _shouldn't_ be. It's no different that how most people think of speeding down the highway or smoking weed in a state that legalized it. Both are still illegal, but nobody cares if you do it and if someone got really really mad over "But its ILLEGAL" nost people would think that thats weird
For another: DACA specifically is hard to oppose because the people involved are children. It might be the case that they broke the law, but the representative case is where their parents broke the law on their behalf when they were young children. They had no say in the matter, no control, probably didn't even have an understanding of what's going on. Most people have an intuitive understanding that it's not fair to punish someone for _accidentally_ committing crimes, and most people have an intuitive understanding that its not fair to hold them accountable for crimes primarily perpetrated by someone else. Both of these viewpoints have a solid foundation in common law. And so most people who support DACA don't thing 'but they broke the law' is a reasonable criticism.
- This is fair. But how do you reconcile this with the fact that if this is the value system that Americans are going by, it effectively creates a loophole in the immigration laws. People will always want to come here for better opportunities. But why bother to come here legally and deal with the red tape. If you have a kid, you can just illegally come here and your kid will be automatically given PR and have a good life. Later with chain migration, your whole family can come here.
- I mean first off, I'm not defending DACA I'm just reporting
Secondly, my understanding is that DACA is temporary. They might end up getting permanent residency in practice but officially it could just get revoked or whatever
And third, well, the unfortunate fact is that a substantial number of americans believe both that there should be minimal or no immigration controls between the US and Mexico, and also that using loopholes and bending rules is fine if thats what you have to do to get it.
I agree that having DACA as an ongoing policy (is that even how it works? Idk) creates a really perverse incentive, and personally I would rather see something like a one time full amnesty + much stricter enforcement going forward. But it's not likely going to happen
- ConocoPhillips u8Fa66Illegal immigration hurting Americans is a myth. Conservatives just need to rally votes from racists
- You could argue liberals are just using this to expand their voter pool. I agree with you in that immigration is good for USA right now. But illegal immigration is wrong. How can you support people willfully breaking US laws? Even if you disagree with the laws, as a citizen of US it is your responsibility to uphold them. You want more immigrants in US, you have the right to lobby, protest and vote to encourage politicians to expand legal immigration. But it is beyond my understanding how you can encourage foreigners who broke the very laws that is is your responsibility as a citizen to uphold.