Illegal Immigration

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens.  If those in power really care about crime prevention, maybe they should refocus their attention on building up impoverished communities, and looking with a fair eye at the wealth distribution in this country.

Another thing the anti-immigration in the US conveniently fail to mention is that EVERY immigrant group to the US has brought along its own criminal element.  But - apparently - Central American immigration is going to bring in a group of evil-doers that are going to reduce the US to smoking rubble.

And before anyone takes exception to this post, you should all be aware that I have seen every episode of 'The Sopranos' as well as both 'Godfather' films, which qualifies me as an expert on organized crime.

Boru

[Brian37]

I live in the "sanctuary state" of California which refuses to aid ICE in apprehending people who are here illegally and actually seems to encourage people to come here illegally. I'm totally in favor of allowing immigration into the US and see our liberal immigration quotas as a positive.  What I don't understand is how we can exist as a nation if we don't have control over who enters the country.  I have a question for those who agree with the state of California and are against prosecuting those who have entered the country illegally or preventing undocumented people from crossing into the country as they wish.  What is your rationale and why is this good for us?

I’m trying to find a way to phrase this that will clearly convey what I think about this. So if I ramble, I apologize.

Our immigration system is deliberately complicated, and simply crossing our southern border at a port of entry is prohibitively difficult for non-US citizens. This is deliberate. People who wish to come in are forced to come through deserts, rivers, and mountains. Thousands die. And these deaths are seen as a positive by policymakers. They see it as a deterrent. Then when the migrants get here they are faced with horrible working conditions, blocked from social services, and mat be separated from their families. And these people STILL want to come here. They are that desperate.

No amount of cracking down on these communities is going to stop the migration. What states like California are doing is wise, IMO. If these communities feel safe calling the cops, then they will be safer. If they don’t, then criminals will exploit these people and hide in these communities.

If stopping this was actually the goal there’s a much easier and more effective way to do it. They come here because there’s work. Well, what if there wasn’t? Companies hire illegals because they’re cheap, they can’t complain about working conditions, and they can’t really negotiate. So let’s say instead of going after desperate people, we fine the companies that hire illegals. Hard. Let’s say $5k per illegal employee per day.

(Incidentally the reason we don’t do this is because businesses don’t want this. It gives American workers more bargaining power and certain administrations didn’t like that)

My bet is if you did this a lot of illegal immigrants would choose to leave or begin applying for legal status (which we really should make a path for). I would also bet that businesses would start pushing hard for comprehensive immigration reform.

Um no, the myth of the river/desert crossing being a majority is just that, a myth. Yes those things happen, but are not the majority of entry.

Most migrants who try to get in wait at the border seeking asylum. 

Most migrants are those whom overstay their visas and or asylum processing if denied once in.

Most of illegal entries also happen at established checkpoints.

But most importantly with or without papers, most migrants are not violent.

A migrant who dies trying to make an attempt to sneak in without going through process, is more likely to die in the trunk of a car or van or 18 wheeler.

But I do agree with most of what you are saying.


This authoritarian hyper nationalistic approach of "crack down" is inhuman, and for those living in the shadows, the "zero tolerance" actually creates a bigger breading ground for crime because if you fear getting deported, even if you are not violent, you are far less likely to report the violent individuals who do need to get deported. 

But as far as punishing companies who hire undocumented workers, I don't think that is a good idea either. They are still human beings, like you and me. I think a better approach rather than punish the worker, because even if you are fining the company, if they get caught, that worker is out of a job, and nobody benefits by having another fellow human not being able to feed themselves. That also goes even for people who are born and live here. The more stable everyone is the less they cost tax payers. And it is a myth that migrants do not pay taxes. They pay taxes every time they buy something, just like you and me. Suddenly remove 11 million migrants, that is a boatload of lost revenue. I would be for fining a company for not paying a minimum wage though. 

Instead, we need to foster a western consensus of nations who create incentives to reform the countries they are coming from. Border security is one thing, how we do it matters. Using fear and bigotry which is what 45 is doing, is cruel and the talk of authoritarians. We can have border security by adding more agents, drones and sensors. But at the same time provide stability to those already here, and work on long term economics to create stability in the countries they come from.

[Natachan]

One of the problems with our immigration debate is that we have a lot of problems that all are coming up at once. We have a humanitarian crisis that is at least partially due to American imperialism destabilizing central and South American nations. We have a need to keep track of our residents. And we have the issue of depressed wages and loss of bargaining power for workers.

When a lot of folks talk about undocumented immigrants they often say it’s an issue of the last two. Too often this is a smokescreen for xenophobia and racism. So my suggestion is one way of dealing with the supposed actual valid concerns. And yes, those are valid concerns. There is a very real disparity between the bargaining power of workers and employers, and it is the worst for undocumented immigrants. So if the issue really was documentation and wage bargaining you would expect the folks calling for hard borders to jump at my proposal.

But they don’t. Ever.

If you want what would IDEALLY happen that’s a bit more complicated, and as I have to go to a meeting in like 5 minutes it’ll have to wait.

[Mister Agenda]

They're hardly bring ignored. Control of our international borders is a Federal issue. It is not the State of California's duty or power to do so.

Exactly! It's not the State of California's job to control our international borders, it's the federal government's.

---

In the 'for what it's worth' department; illegal immigrants are leaving the USA faster than they are entering it. Ten years ago we had about a million more undocumented residents living in the USA than we do now. Why is it considered a 'crisis' now besides political theater?

---

I see that many of you are confusing border control with wanting to stop immigration.  It's a way that those who are against controlling immigration use to cloud the issue.  I stated in my OP that I am in favor of our liberal immigration quotas and think that it is a positive for America.  Another they use is to label anyone who is in favor of border control is a racist.   They're tactics to shift the attention away from the real issues.  If some stranger came to the door of your house, said they were a refugee from another country and wanted to move in with you would you just open up the door and let him in?  You might even be willing to take him in, but not without first knowing who he is and what his real situation is first.  If you want to know what uncontrolled immigration can do to a civilization just as the Native Americansand they'll tell you.

If border control is the real issue, surveillance drones can do a better job than a wall or fence at a fraction of the cost. More immigration judges can address asylum seekers in a state of limbo.

Can you think of an example where the lower tech and lower population density immigrants conquered the fully developed industrialized superpower? Your analogy seems to be the opposite of the actual situation. After it became a nation, America had uncontrolled immigration for much of its early history and prospered.

Fear that a minority will do to you what your ancestors did to what is now a minority is kind of hard to separate from actual racism, because that is exactly one of the arguments used to justify racism.

And all I've ever needed to know to let someone in my home is that they needed a place to stay. But I'm not a 21st century 'Christian', so that may explain my willingness to take a chance on a stranger.

---

Considering the alternative which would be an even greater abuse .This just comes off as weak sauce .

Considering you are Canadian, feel free to bring them north or STFU.

https://www.voanews.com/a/canada-to-step...37940.html

Wow, that was unimpressive.

[Angrboda]

One needs to separate the real issues of immigration from the false myths about it before anything can be productively discussed. The cost of immigration is debatable. Studies show that second generation immigrants contribute more than they consume in services. So the idea that immigrants are a drain on the economy is largely dependent upon specific assumptions, and varies according to which source of information you look at. Moreover, it's questionable whether immigration can be looked upon as a straight cost in the way other things can be, because immigration, both legal and illegal, is going to impact society in various ways. Arguing that the benefits of immigration outweigh the dollar costs becomes something of an apples to oranges comparison as the benefits to a society and the world of immigration and protection of refugees can't really be measured in dollars and cents. What was Einstein's contribution to the intellectual community at Princeton when he migrated to the U.S.? How do you put a dollar figure on that? The other questionable narrative is that illegal immigration makes a significant impact on crime in the U.S., and that a substantial percentage of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, contribute significantly to crime in the U.S.. Both of these themes are heavily pushed by conservatives as one of the most compelling reasons for the need for immigration reform and for specific reforms, yet there is little or no evidence for either. Yes, some criminal elements accompany peaceful illegal immigrants. Their percentage is not great, and it's questionable as to whether reducing illegal and legal immigration in general would have an impact on their numbers. There is also the claim that enforcing our borders would reduce the flow of illegal drugs into our country. But this claim is undermined by the fact that the majority of illegal drugs trafficked into our country come through at U.S. checkpoints and through the postal service and other package carriers. The idea that reducing the entry of immigrants outside U.S. checkpoints would significantly reduce the traffic of illegal drugs is not supported. The real questions about immigration focus on enforcement of our borders, fairness and resources devoted to processing immigrants, and the cost and inadequacy of infrastructure devoted to managing and processing illegal immigration.

So there are real issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately the right isn't really interested in pursuing them, preferring instead to stoke racist and xenophobic fears that play well with their base. This is nothing but pandering for the sake of getting elected. It's aimed at addressing the needs of the politician, not the interests of our country. I'm more than happy to see positive changes in our immigration policies and how we deal with immigrants. But the pointless fear-mongering needs to stop. And a wall isn't a positive step in any direction, as its justification rests largely on myths about crime and drugs and immigration.

[tackattack]

Immigration contributions to society asside, with regards to border security, will the trump wall have a "trespassers will be shot" sign like my neighbor has in his yard?

[Lek]

Despite all that has been said, the question remains "should we control immigration into the US"?  If so, we need to have effective laws, systems and enforcement.  Our current system is obviously ineffective.  It's not California's job to enforce the borders, but it also neglecting the well-being of it's citizens by protecting known criminals simply because they are undocumented immigrants, especially when they don't do the same for documented immigrants and citizens.  In many cases, if the Feds are after a known criminal who is a citizen, California will co-operate, but if the criminal is undocumented they will not.  Sanctuary cities do not protect criminal citizens - only undocumented criminals.  Whatever the crime rate is for immigrants, we need to know who is crossing our borders folks.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Despite all that has been said, the question remains "should we control immigration into the US"?  If so, we need to have effective laws, systems and enforcement.  Our current system is obviously ineffective.  It's not California's job to enforce the borders, but it also neglecting the well-being of it's citizens by protecting known criminals simply because they are undocumented immigrants, especially when they don't do the same for documented immigrants and citizens.  In many cases, if the Feds are after a known criminal who is a citizen, California will co-operate, but if the criminal is undocumented they will not.  Sanctuary cities do not protect criminal citizens - only undocumented criminals.  Whatever the crime rate is for immigrants, we need to know who is crossing our borders folks.

'A 2017 review study of the existing literature noted that the existing studies had found that sanctuary cities either have no impact on crime or that they lower the crime rate.[5] A second 2017 study in the journal Urban Affairs Review found that sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.[64][3][65][66][67] The findings of the study were misinterpreted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in a July 2017 speech when he claimed that the study showed that sanctuary cities were more prone to crime than cities without sanctuary policies.[68][69] A third study in the journal Justice Quarterly found evidence that the adoption of sanctuary policies reduced the robbery rate but had no impact on the homicide rate except in cities with larger Mexican undocumented immigrant populations which had lower rates of homicide.[70]

According to a study by Tom K. Wong, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, published by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank: "Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties – from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment."[4] The study also concluded that sanctuary cities build trust between local law enforcement and the community, which enhances public safety overall.[71] The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino."[4]'

This bit kind of stands out:

'A third study in the journal Justice Quarterly found evidence that the adoption of sanctuary policies reduced the robbery rate but had no impact on the homicide rate except in cities with larger Mexican undocumented immigrant populations which had lower rates of homicide.'

Overall, it would seem that being in a sanctuary city reduces your chances of being the victim of a crime.

Boru

[Natachan]

So I am HIGHLY skeptical that California is releasing violent criminals because of their sanctuary policy. Especially since a quick google search seems to say quite the opposite. But as I’m a bleeding heart lib cuck my google results are suspect. Especially since I don’t like cops in general and I don’t like ICE at all.

So I will be blunt. I don’t find the term “criminal” useful because I don’t think laws in and of themselves are very meaningful. If the argument is “these people are criminals because they crossed illegally” my answer is I don’t care. If the argument is that we need to document those entering our country I would agree and see about policies to enable that.

[Amarok]

 Often the two go hand in hand 

And it's very rarely  wrong 

That's good 


  And it's very rarely  wrong 



Or what they are doing 


A country is not a house 



A country is not a house and it's none of my business 


Comparing imperialist colonization to what's going on at the US Mexican border is absurd

---

And ?


That's nice 



The assumption here is a nation is defined by border control 

Better they are here then were they came from and it's not about us .

Ok.  Let me get this straight.  If you believe in controlling entry through the borders that means that you are against immigration and you're a racist to boot. A house is different than a country, so there is no need to verify whether or not a person is a terrorist, drug smuggler, human trafficker, felon, etc. before allowing them into the country. It's really not our business anyway.  Plus they cause no danger to us because they are not imperialist colonizers.  And finally, it's all about them and not about us.  Phooey!

You need to seriously need to stop spinning straw 

1. I never said they were racist . But all to often racist use this stuff as an excuse.

2.Again you read way to much into my comments . I never said that we don't need to affirm people at least internally for criminal acts wen they commit them . I did object to going about it the way you would letting someone into a house as it's a dumb comparison . And by the way we don't need a closed or regulated border to deal with any of the things you mentioned this runs into the fallacy of equaling law enforcement with the border they can be two different things . 

3.Pointing out your analogy of comparing colonialism which was an intentional act of government entity to  Mexican immigration in no way affirms what you are accusing me of .

4. And yes letting in refugees shouldn't be based on what they do for us . It's enough that we do the right thing .

When you through reading into my comment rather then reading them let me know .

---

Despite all that has been said, the question remains "should we control immigration into the US"? 

No 

If so, we need to have effective laws, systems and enforcement. 

Considering that that illegal immigration is a fifth of what it was in 2000 I would have to disagree 

Our current system is obviously ineffective. 

See above 

It's not California's job to enforce the borders, but it also neglecting the well-being of it's citizens by protecting known criminals simply because they are undocumented immigrants, especially when they don't do the same for documented immigrants and citizens. 

Yeah no 

In many cases, if the Feds are after a known criminal who is a citizen, California will co-operate, but if the criminal is undocumented they will not. 

Yeah no 

Sanctuary cities do not protect criminal citizens - only undocumented criminals.  Whatever the crime rate is for immigrants, we need to know who is crossing our borders folks.

Nope it can be dealt with away from the border