Immigration

[Irish YJ]

Wages rise on California farms. Americans still don’t want the job (LA Times)

Several thoughts here....
-Perhaps there aren't that many Americans in those areas after a Stillmore-GA like upheaval of the American residents by cheaper labor.
-Perhaps CA, by choosing to exploit cheap labor for years and ignore federal law, are finally getting their just due..
-Perhaps people can pay a couple more bucks for their CA wine...
-Also, the min wage hike passed in CA to take place in 4 or 5 years was going to impact them sooner or later...
-Supply and demand will balance itself out.

Farmers Brace For Labor Shortage Under New Immigration Policy (AgWeb)

This is an old article complaining about Obama deporting... did you ooops?
The previous article complained about Obama as well...

Kids in exchange for deportation: Detained migrants say they were told they could get kids back on way out of U.S.
(Texas Tribune)

Caught illegally entering, then claimed asylum. IMO, anyone caught illegally entering broke the law, and should be turned around automatically anyway. If you want to claim asylum, present yourself at an entry point, or go through the process via the embassy.

Is the Border in Crisis? ‘We’re Doing Fine, Quite Frankly,’ a Border City Mayor Says (NY Times)

Lib source, lib mayor.... OK.. And per the picture, they have a pretty decent wall there. Perhaps that's why he's doing fine.

 

[Legacy]

YJ,
I can count on you to read the articles that I post.
However, the Ag Web article is meant to cover Obama's immigration legacy. He deported more people than any other President. This has been going on for a while. Except for the zero toleration rhetoric and the separation of parents and children. That type of rhetoric has appealed to a certain group as well as his characterization of rapists and murderers and that we are being overrun. Within the context of previous posts noting the negative impacts of state immigration policies like Alabama, Georgia and Arizona and some of my previous and recent posts about Agriculture industry wanting less bureaucracy in processing HB2A visas are farmers' immigration concerns, expressed to Washington.
Solutions for Ag Labor Reform (Farm Bureau Org)
The High Cost of Cheap Labor (Modern Farmer)
New ‘Blue Card’ Proposal Would Protect Farmworkers from Deportation Farmers Wait, And Wait, For Guest Workers Amid H-2A Visa Delays (NPR)
‘I Need More Mexicans’: A Kansas Farmer’s Message to Trump
Losing Immigrant Workers on Dairy Farms Would Nearly Double Retail Milk Prices
They broke labor rules. We gave them $8M in farm subsidies and 8,000 foreign workers.
Idaho dairy on immigration: Safe, affordable food needs 'immigrants to get the job done'
The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia's Immigration Law BackfiresTrump officials open border to 15,000 more foreign workers

Bills have been introduced in Congress to solve this. Feinstein from Calif has recently done this. Prior to this, the Senate passed a Comprehensive Immigration Bill in 2013 blocked in the House. Members of the House worked together in a bipartisan manner also blocked by leadership. (I haven't updated my research with HB2A lately, but you can.)

There's a bit of disingenuity and true politics involved here. Getting beyond "libs" and "leftists" reveals true needs or lack of them. I really don't care about what party that mayor is from or the full employment in the U.S. and California or other states. Does it change the situation? There are economic consequences to this and any foreign policies with tariffs.

 

[IrishLax]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Latest: President Trump tweets "Wow!" after the Supreme Court upheld his travel ban from several mostly Muslim countries. <a href="https://t.co/ZmRVFvUddT">https://t.co/ZmRVFvUddT</a></p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1011624036261089281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm surprised it was only 5-4, but I understand why the optics make it difficult for any liberal judge to vote objectively.

Trump clearly had the power to do what he did and there is a ton of precedent on this.

 

[NorthDakota]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Latest: President Trump tweets "Wow!" after the Supreme Court upheld his travel ban from several mostly Muslim countries. <a href="https://t.co/ZmRVFvUddT">https://t.co/ZmRVFvUddT</a></p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/1011624036261089281?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 26, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm surprised it was only 5-4, but I understand why the optics make it difficult for any liberal judge to vote objectively.

Trump clearly had the power to do what he did and there is a ton of precedent on this.

I was expecting a bigger land slide as well.

 

[ickythump1225]

The only reason it wasn't 9-0 is partisan politics. There is a clear and established precedent for an Executive to regulate who enters the country. It goes to show how crucial the Supreme Court is, with a liberal court in place America would be forced to take infinity foreigners forever and ever essentially ending the concept of citizenship in America in any real sense.

 

[Irish YJ]

YJ,
I can count on you to read the articles that I post.
However, the Ag Web article is meant to cover Obama's immigration legacy. He deported more people than any other President. This has been going on for a while. Except for the zero toleration rhetoric and the separation of parents and children. That type of rhetoric has appealed to a certain group as well as his characterization of rapists and murderers and that we are being overrun. Within the context of previous posts noting the negative impacts of state immigration policies like Alabama, Georgia and Arizona and some of my previous and recent posts about Agriculture industry wanting less bureaucracy in processing HB2A visas are farmers' immigration concerns, expressed to Washington.
Solutions for Ag Labor Reform (Farm Bureau Org)
The High Cost of Cheap Labor (Modern Farmer)
New ‘Blue Card’ Proposal Would Protect Farmworkers from Deportation Farmers Wait, And Wait, For Guest Workers Amid H-2A Visa Delays (NPR)
‘I Need More Mexicans’: A Kansas Farmer’s Message to Trump
Losing Immigrant Workers on Dairy Farms Would Nearly Double Retail Milk Prices
They broke labor rules. We gave them $8M in farm subsidies and 8,000 foreign workers.
Idaho dairy on immigration: Safe, affordable food needs 'immigrants to get the job done'
The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia's Immigration Law BackfiresTrump officials open border to 15,000 more foreign workers

Bills have been introduced in Congress to solve this. Feinstein from Calif has recently done this. Prior to this, the Senate passed a Comprehensive Immigration Bill in 2013 blocked in the House. Members of the House worked together in a bipartisan manner also blocked by leadership. (I haven't updated my research with HB2A lately, but you can.)

There's a bit of disingenuity and true politics involved here. Getting beyond "libs" and "leftists" reveals true needs or lack of them. I really don't care about what party that mayor is from or the full employment in the U.S. and California or other states. Does it change the situation? There are economic consequences to this and any foreign policies with tariffs.

Don't get me started on Obama's policy. While he deported more than any other, his numbers dropped over the life of his term. Also, every president has pretty much deported more than the previous. His push to make local and federal cooperation an "option" is why we have sanctuary cities today. His parole and other BS decisions are to a large part why we have the catch, release, and lost problem (95+% failure)... Not to mention over his term "asylum" claims skyrocketed. His willingness to grant visas, and then his propensity to ignore the overstays (he went after less than 2%) is why that problem is also plaguing us.

There are economic consequences to all decisions. Lack of enforcement created the problems. Making it easy to enter illegally only encourages more to do so. Allowing farmers to break the law, AND exploit immigrants is something I've always thought would could back to kick them in the ass. I'm not one who thinks continuing to ignore the problem is a solution. Feinstein's bills are a joke. Her latest would prevent almost every federal arrest. You can't be that far from center and expect the middle to take you seriously.

PS... when you listen to a politician, be it mayor or other, it's pretty relevant what party he belongs to. When someone says something that doesn't match their party's platform, that's when I listen... not when they toe that line...

 

[ACamp1900]

Obama deported more than any is debatable, or at least circumstantial,... more likely it’s just typical tricky language and convenient counting methods. Some of which is touched on here....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eportation-statistics/?utm_term=.ae5522caa417

On the flip sancuatry cities were around long before Obama bumbled through...

 

[Irish YJ]

Obama deported more than any is debatable, or at least circumstantial,... more likely it’s just typical tricky language and convenient counting methods. Some of which is touched on here....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...eportation-statistics/?utm_term=.ae5522caa417

On the flip sancuatry cities were around long before Obama bumbled through...

Sure some cities were more willing to ignore things than others, but Obama pretty much told them their cooperation with federal law was optional. This emboldened them and the turned the volume way up.

 

[Irish YJ]

New York Times details conditions of Obama-era family detention center: 'No place for human beings' | Fox News

 

[Irish YJ]

Pentagon has been asked to house up to 12,000 immigrants

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-housing-pentagon/pentagon-has-been-asked-to-house-up-to-12000-immigrants-idUSKBN1JO01M

Whatever it takes to not go back to failed catch and release...

 

[NorthDakota]

Pentagon has been asked to house up to 12,000 immigrants

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-housing-pentagon/pentagon-has-been-asked-to-house-up-to-12000-immigrants-idUSKBN1JO01M

Whatever it takes to not go back to failed catch and release...

Damn straight. Make it uncomfortable.

 

[Irish YJ]

Damn straight. Make it uncomfortable.

They can give them feather beds for all I care, just no catch and release.

Watching CNN and MSNBC a few time today, they had a few segments on immigration. I know, you're shocked.... Talked about the need to taken in the Central Americans and also give Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador more funding.....

F that... if people from your country need asylum, let the UN go in and take shit over. That is, a UN that pays their equal shares.... We've been giving them billions and people keep on coming... Close the piggy bank.

 

[Irish YJ]

Democrats are making a big mistake on immigration
https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/25/opinions/trump-immigration-gop-could-still-win-jennings-opinion/

Two dumb things happened in the last several days: The Trump administration separated children from their parents as they, many of them illegally, crossed the border into the United States, and the American left assumed that the subsequent outcry over this decision would fundamentally alter the political landscape.

This flap over family detention has again laid bare a debate that worked in Trump's favor in 2016 and could still help him and the Republican Party win in 2018 and 2020: One party prefers tighter immigration restrictions and one party leans toward relaxed enforcement. Trump himself made that case in a speech in Las Vegas over the weekend, when he cited in fiery terms Democrats' desire for "open borders" on a campaign swing designed to boost the fortunes of incumbent Republican Dean Heller.

Democrats are likely to be disappointed when they poll this issue. My guess is that a majority of Americans will feel the same about Trump before and after, and some may even like him more. The bottom is not going to fall out of this presidency over Trump taking a position that conforms with his hardline anti-immigration stance. I imagine a negligible number of Trump supporters will abandon their support for him over this misguided policy.

Regarding what to do with the immigrant families once they are detained, Democrats should not assume wide support for the position taken by Sen. Kamala Harris of California -- essentially, release them inside the United States pending a hearing. While most polling shows that Americans view legal immigration as a positive thing for the United States, a sizable portion of Americans would likely prefer to keep the families together before deporting them to their country of origin -- as opposed to releasing them inside the United States. Most voters welcome people coming here legally, but believe illegal immigration is a serious problem.

Being candid about Trump's decision to engage in a policy leading to family separation, surely the White House wishes it could have that one back. The President wound up reversing course via executive order after days of painful images and audio recordings created a public outcry. Shifting explanations from various administration officials made the position untenable, and the President smartly put an end to it last Wednesday, although Trump can take solace in former Department of Homeland Security Director Jeh Johnson's admission on Fox News on Sunday that the Obama administration did, in fact, detain some children alone.

As for the Democrats, they couldn't take yes for an answer. After clamoring for the President to end his administration's policy, they moved the goalposts as soon as he did. What started as a demand to stop separating families has morphed into a call to stop detaining the families altogether.
Harris, a possible 2020 presidential candidate, tweeted that "Indefinitely detaining children with their families in camps is inhumane and will not make us safe." In other words, she wants the families caught and released into the United States. She went further, asking other senators to support her "DONE Act to prohibit the expansion or construction of new detention facilities." Where are we supposed to put the people caught illegally passing into the United States if we don't have enough detention facilities? The answer, of course, is nowhere. Harris doesn't seem to want them detained at all.

While President Trump was wrong to move to the harsh penalty of separating children from their families, Democrats are playing with fire by putting catch-and-release at the top of their agenda. Americans clearly believe we need stronger borders, even as they prefer the families be kept together before being shipped home.
Left-wing political and media figures are playing into the President's hand by trying to delegitimize his concerns about criminals crossing our borders. On "CNN Tonight" last week, responding to a point I made about the President's preference that we stop violent criminals at the border, New York Times columnist Charles Blow said: "We wouldn't have a country if it wasn't flooded with criminals in the very beginning."
While Blow isn't wrong that some criminals were sent here from England in the 1700s (before we were an independent nation, by the way), I'd like to see a congressional candidate use that as a rationale for a position of catch-and-release in the fall election. Good luck!

Beyond that, whatever Trump's family separation position cost the Republican Party politically has more than been erased by hysterical comments like those from Democrats like Rep. Maxine Waters, who called for the public to "create a crowd" to "push back on" Trump administration officials. She included a startling call to action: "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. You push back on them. Tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere!" Her remarks followed incidents of harassment targeted at Trump's press secretary Sarah Sanders and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who were run out of public places.

Americans across the political spectrum can have reasonable — even fierce — policy disagreements, but calling for angry mobs to hound political enemies will strike most Americans as dangerous. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi referred to Waters' comments in a tweet as "unacceptable," but also blamed Trump's "lack of civility" as a provoking factor. The fact is that voters may not want to trust control of the government to people who believe in mob justice over civil discourse.
But while the outcry over immigration policy isn't likely to doom the GOP's chances at winning, Republicans still have work to do.

More optimistic rhetoric and party unity would be helpful. Imagine if congressional Republicans could unify around legislation that did it all — secured the borders, saved the Dreamers, unified families and reformed a broken system. GOP unity would force the Senate Democrats to provide 10 votes for a big fix or face backlash for obstructionism.

Alas, the GOP currently remains fractured on broad solutions.
I would also advise Republicans to embrace the reason immigrants are coming here: We have a country that is worth the risk. As long as we have more jobs than people to fill them (we do), and as long as America is safer than the violent villages of Central America (it is), we can expect people to continue to risk it all to come to the United States.

This is not a bad thing. It means that under President Trump and the Republicans, our economy is red hot and America remains the envy of the world. Republicans can embrace this positive condition while still preferring stronger borders and a reformed immigration system that keeps the criminals out.

What happens next? The most likely outcome is a narrow congressional fix on the family separation issue, while the remaining immigration problems remain, sadly, unresolved. Meanwhile, the President will continue to make his case for tougher border enforcement, and the Democrats will go down the catch-and-release rabbit hole. Just as they didn't in 2016, Democrats aren't going to like where that takes them.

 

[RDU Irish]

"But while the outcry over immigration policy isn't likely to doom the GOP's chances at winning, Republicans still have work to do."

I see the debate as a positive for Republicans - all they have done is highlight the real motivation and lunacy of the far left! Polling has been strongly against catch and release which was quietly done for so long.

The reason we can't have nice things is Republicans can't flip off the extremists to the right and make reasonable reforms. They need to expand legal channels dramatically - by a factor of at least 4. No need to be too generous with citizenship - give a 10 year path to citizenship to earn it. Far right doesn't like amnesty but you have to be practical at some point - they need to be documented but that does not have to mean citizenship. I think something to the tune of 70% would be in favor of permanent visas over undocumented if those were the two options.

Whatever that path is, make it twice as long for illegals already here. You get six months to establish your presence and get legal - after that no excuses and anyone caught is shipped out. From there - you control the border and can be harder on illegals.

 

[Irish YJ]

"But while the outcry over immigration policy isn't likely to doom the GOP's chances at winning, Republicans still have work to do."

I see the debate as a positive for Republicans - all they have done is highlight the real motivation and lunacy of the far left! Polling has been strongly against catch and release which was quietly done for so long.

The reason we can't have nice things is Republicans can't flip off the extremists to the right and make reasonable reforms. They need to expand legal channels dramatically - by a factor of at least 4. No need to be too generous with citizenship - give a 10 year path to citizenship to earn it. Far right doesn't like amnesty but you have to be practical at some point - they need to be documented but that does not have to mean citizenship. I think something to the tune of 70% would be in favor of permanent visas over undocumented if those were the two options.

Whatever that path is, make it twice as long for illegals already here. You get six months to establish your presence and get legal - after that no excuses and anyone caught is shipped out. From there - you control the border and can be harder on illegals.

All the polls I've seen are minimum 2 to 1 in against Catch and Release. I've seen as high as 3 to 1. I'm with you on everything above. I'm perfectly fine with amnesty if they lock shit down and end chain migration. I guarantee that 90+% of current illegals would be happy to have permanent status without citizenship.

 

[Wild Bill]

"But while the outcry over immigration policy isn't likely to doom the GOP's chances at winning, Republicans still have work to do."

I see the debate as a positive for Republicans - all they have done is highlight the real motivation and lunacy of the far left! Polling has been strongly against catch and release which was quietly done for so long.

The reason we can't have nice things is Republicans can't flip off the extremists to the right and make reasonable reforms. They need to expand legal channels dramatically - by a factor of at least 4. No need to be too generous with citizenship - give a 10 year path to citizenship to earn it. Far right doesn't like amnesty but you have to be practical at some point - they need to be documented but that does not have to mean citizenship. I think something to the tune of 70% would be in favor of permanent visas over undocumented if those were the two options.

Whatever that path is, make it twice as long for illegals already here. You get six months to establish your presence and get legal - after that no excuses and anyone caught is shipped out. From there - you control the border and can be harder on illegals.

A recent study by Harvard found that 81% of voters wanted to decrease LEGAL immigration. Think about how hard it is to get an 80% plus majority on ANY issue in this country right now. Increasing immigration is the extremist position and until recently the only obstacle to so called reasonable reforms the GOP would love to shove down our throats is the overwhelming majority of citizens who reject their agenda.

 

[Irish YJ]

A recent study by Harvard found that 81% of voters wanted to decrease LEGAL immigration. Think about how hard it is to get an 80% plus majority on ANY issue in this country right now. Increasing immigration is the extremist position and until recently the only obstacle to so called reasonable reforms the GOP would love to shove down our throats is the overwhelming majority of citizens who reject their agenda.

In all fairness, I think it's 80% because of the issues we have with illegal immigration. And to a lesser degree terrorism. If the border was locked down, catch and release ended, chain migration killed, and economic asylum was exposed, I think folks would be open to additional immigration if it were managed properly. At the end of the day, I think people want to help those looking for a better life, but they also want the best. I think both can be accomplished. The system now is just a complete cluster.

 

[Wild Bill]

In all fairness, I think it's 80% because of the issues we have with illegal immigration. And to a lesser degree terrorism. If the border was locked down, catch and release ended, chain migration killed, and economic asylum was exposed, I think folks would be open to additional immigration if it were managed properly. At the end of the day, I think people want to help those looking for a better life, but they also want the best. I think both can be accomplished. The system now is just a complete cluster.

Do you believe it's being mismanaged or that those who control our immigration policies are properly managing them to get the end result they wanted?

Take California for instance. While Buster and Leppy sit here and debate whether California is financially ascending or descending, it's lost on all of us to ask a simple question - according to whom? If you're wealthy, California is a great. You live in a beautiful state, plenty of opportunity to earn a living off of your capital, never-ending supply of labor gives you an opportunity to squeeze every ounce out and then discard them. You also have the luxury of secluding yourself in affluent enclaves to avoid the "diversity" you proudly exclaim is our greatest strength. California's middle class hasn't been as fortunate. Within a generation, they've been forced to move out of the state or accept stagnant wages and higher prices. What's more likely - that this result was pure chance and the elites luckily came out on top or this was planned and "immigration management" tailored to the interests of the elite was part of the plan?

We've been psychologically manipulated by our government, media, and our corporate rulers to believe we have a moral obligation to accept more and more immigrants and everything will work out - economy will be better, we'll be safer, we'll enjoy social cohesion, etc.. Most Americans know this is horseshit now. I give our elite credit, though. They are digging in and doing whatever they can to gaslight us even more. Maybe they can get that number lower than 80% but I'm not so sure. The negative effects are just too open and obvious.

 

[Irish YJ]

Do you believe it's being mismanaged or that those who control our immigration policies are properly managing them to get the end result they wanted?

Take California for instance. While Buster and Leppy sit here and debate whether California is financially ascending or descending, it's lost on all of us to ask a simple question - according to whom? If you're wealthy, California is a great. You live in a beautiful state, plenty of opportunity to earn a living off of your capital, never-ending supply of labor gives you an opportunity to squeeze every ounce out and then discard them. You also have the luxury of secluding yourself in affluent enclaves to avoid the "diversity" you proudly exclaim is our greatest strength. California's middle class hasn't been as fortunate. Within a generation, they've been forced to move out of the state or accept stagnant wages and higher prices. What's more likely - that this result was pure chance and the elites luckily came out on top or this was planned and "immigration management" tailored to the interests of the elite was part of the plan?

We've been psychologically manipulated by our government, media, and our corporate rulers to believe we have a moral obligation to accept more and more immigrants and everything will work out - economy will be better, we'll be safer, we'll enjoy social cohesion, etc.. Most Americans know this is horseshit now. I give our elite credit, though. They are digging in and doing whatever they can to gaslight us even more. Maybe they can get that number lower than 80% but I'm not so sure. The negative effects are just too open and obvious.

I think the policy has been to purposefully mismanage laws to achieve desired results. For the left, I think they are playing identity politics knowing what's ahead. The Census projections clearly show that by 2060, the under 18 Latino population will become the largest ethnic group. Nobody on the left is going to say that, but they are simply paying attention to the math and have been since the early 2000s.

Bill Clinton was no friend to illegals. A matter a fact, the parties have flip flopped to an extent since the 90s. Bill said in his 1995 State of the Union Address, "All Americans are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country." At the same time, Repubs didn't seem to care. House Majority Leader Dick Armey wanted to increase immigration.....

Under Obama, policy went south and was pretty much a joke. Which is kind of strange since the Dem's 80s and 90s approach to immigration was in part an effort to protect African Americans which immigration has had the largest direct impact on.

In short, I don't think the political left establishment gives a damn about immigrants (which is what pisses me off). I'm sure some Dems sincerely care, but I think the "establishment" is doing nothing but running a con.

 

[Legacy]

For Texas ranchers living along border fence, talk of an illegal crossing crisis is exaggerated (Texas Tribune)

Migrant Parents Scramble to Locate Children Separated From Them at the U.S. Border (Time)

Defendants In Diapers? Immigrant Toddlers Ordered To Appear In Court Alone (Kaiser Health)

At the border, doctors, advocates worry medical care for immigrants is lacking (Dallas Morning News)

 

[Irish YJ]

For Texas ranchers living along border fence, talk of an illegal crossing crisis is exaggerated (Texas Tribune)

-They interview Hispanics who live along the border. Not surprised they have pro-immigration feelings....
-They interview ranch and farm owners? Anyone think they just might use undocumented immigrants on their ranches or farms?
-They see crossings all the time...

Migrant Parents Scramble to Locate Children Separated From Them at the U.S. Border (Time)

Another Time article. Hope they fact checked this time. And I hope we can get families reunited ASAP and detained together going forward.

Defendants In Diapers? Immigrant Toddlers Ordered To Appear In Court Alone (Kaiser Health)

From the article...

Requiring unaccompanied minors to go through deportation alone is not a new practice.

Why is it that no one cared pre-Trump?

At the border, doctors, advocates worry medical care for immigrants is lacking (Dallas Morning News)

I'm sure that the care they are getting is better than where they came from, and certainly better than they experienced with coyotes on the way here. All on the US dime.

 

[Legacy]

Stereotyping Hispanics indicates an unfamiliarity with border states who have significant Hispanic populations who have lived in those states for centuries, literally, and who like most Americans live the American dream and culture - work on their ranches passed down through generations, go to Catholic churched, sending their children to school for a better life, are divided on politics, and whose states all differ in challenges and needs along their own borders. Even a peripheral reading of the Texas Tribune article has a subtitle that says:

Many Rio Grande Valley residents have farmed land along the border fence for decades. On hot summer days, they mow their lawns and repair trucks, take care of ailing relatives and sip coffee at local convenience stores. What they don’t do, they say, is worry about a crisis at the border.

Southwestern Texas is heavily Hispanic, which is why many of their state legislators come from Hispanic families living there. New Mexico has a Republican governor, who headed the Republican Governors' Association, whose parents came from Mexico. Arizona has a significant voting Hispanic population but whose lax gun laws contribute to gun violence along the border. California may have a Hispanic governor. Reputable reporting is dismissed because some of those interviewed along the border of ranches and farmers are those Hispanics or a dismissal of an article based on its name.

Border patrol agents are Hispanic and/or speak Spanish and give out water to those in need and are sickened by the separation of children from their parents. There has been commerce and limited travel restrictions for decades in the twentieth century as farmers need workers and Mexicans need the income. They have honored each other's culture if they are different.

If you had gone to the Sun Bowl, you can see that El Paso and Juarez are almost seamless, divided by a fence not nearly twenty feet. You would have heard the El Paso mayor welcome Notre Dame and talk of a large faithful population there who follow the Irish. If you had gone to the Alamo Bowl in San Antonio, you may have seen the Catholic Churches that have been there for centuries or listened to Mass in Spanish. Lumping in children with their parents who come from Central America with Mexican gangs who don't come through or near official border crossings for asylum ignores past policies of the Republican party to welcome and court the growing Hispanic population in the U.S. of residents who have lived here for decades and centuries. It appeals only to those who lack the initiative to educate themselves about the reality of our southern border.

With that, I am done with responding to your posts.

 

[Irish YJ]

Stereotyping Hispanics indicates an unfamiliarity with border states who have significant Hispanic populations who have lived in those states for centuries, literally, and who like most Americans live the American dream and culture - work on their ranches passed down through generations, go to Catholic churched, sending their children to school for a better life, are divided on politics, and whose states all differ in challenges and needs along their own borders. Southwestern

Texas is heavily Hispanic, which is why many of their state legislators come from Hispanic families living there. New Mexico has a Republican governor, who headed the Republican Governors' Association, whose parents came from Mexico. Arizona has a significant voting Hispanic population but whose lax gun laws contribute to gun violence along the border. California may have a Hispanic governor. Reputable reporting is dismissed because some of those interviewed along the border of ranches and farmers are those Hispanics or a dismissal of an article based on its name.

Border patrol agents are Hispanic and/or speak Spanish and give out water to those in need and are sickened by the separation of children from their parents. There has been commerce and limited travel restrictions for decades in the twentieth century as farmers need workers and Mexicans need the income. They have honored each other's culture if they are different.

If you had gone to the Sun Bowl, you can see that El Paso and Juarez are almost seamless, divided by a fence not nearly twenty feet. Lumping in children with their parents who come from Central America with Mexican gangs who don't come through or near official border crossings for asylum ignores past policies of the Republican party to welcome and court the growing Hispanic population in the U.S. of residents who have lived here for decades and centuries. It appeals only to those who lack the initiative to educate themselves about the reality of our southern border.

With that, I am done with responding to your posts.

I am not stereotyping anyone. Is it not a fair assumption that Hispanics would generally be pro-Hispanic immigration?

I've been to El Paso many times. While only a border separates Juarez, the crime in Juarez is horrendous. And it is a stronghold for the cartels. Not sure what your point is.

And Democrats are ignoring their past policies. So now dems are woke. Got it.

And border patrol agents.. They have always given out water. Not just to separated families. And the president of the Border Patrol's union is a big supporter of Trump's policies....

With that, take care, and go Irish.

 

[Bluto]

I am not stereotyping anyone. Is it not a fair assumption that Hispanics would generally be pro-Hispanic immigration?

Not really. Case in point, older Cuban Americans have radically different political views than say younger Mexican Americans.

 

[Irish YJ]

Not really. Case in point, older Cuban Americans have radically different political views than say younger Mexican Americans.

So perhaps I should have said most Mexican Americans would be pro-Mexican immigration.

And I did say generally (>50%)

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

I think the policy has been to purposefully mismanage laws to achieve desired results. For the left, I think they are playing identity politics knowing what's ahead. The Census projections clearly show that by 2060, the under 18 Latino population will become the largest ethnic group. Nobody on the left is going to say that, but they are simply paying attention to the math and have been since the early 2000s.

Bill Clinton was no friend to illegals. A matter a fact, the parties have flip flopped to an extent since the 90s. Bill said in his 1995 State of the Union Address, "All Americans are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country." At the same time, Repubs didn't seem to care. House Majority Leader Dick Armey wanted to increase immigration.....

Under Obama, policy went south and was pretty much a joke. Which is kind of strange since the Dem's 80s and 90s approach to immigration was in part an effort to protect African Americans which immigration has had the largest direct impact on.

In short, I don't think the political left establishment gives a damn about immigrants (which is what pisses me off). I'm sure some Dems sincerely care, but I think the "establishment" is doing nothing but running a con.

The policy to alter the demographics of this country began way before 2000s and the Democrat’s identity politics initiative. Do some research.

Any Amnesty would sound the death knell for this country. Hence the drive by both party leaders to push for it. The party leaders do not believe in America as a nation. We are to them a state in a global community. Their constituency is not us but the internationalists. They snicker as they feign interest in middle and lower America’s plight.

“To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.”

 

[Irish YJ]

The policy to alter the demographics of this country began way before 2000s and the Democrat’s identity politics initiative. Do some research.

Any Amnesty would sound the death knell for this country. Hence the drive by both party leaders to push for it. The party leaders do not believe in America as a nation. We are to them a state in a global community. Their constituency is not us but the internationalists. They snicker as they feign interest in middle and lower America’s plight.

“To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.”

I'm no expert, but I don't see too much policy on either side to alter demographics pre-2000. Clinton was vocal about his concern, and made it easier for rapid deportation. A Democrat Senate majority passed the Secure Fence act in 2006. Bernie Sanders voted against comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. During the Clinton days, a lot of the GOP was pro immigration.

IMO the Dems made a calculated decision at some point to flip the script based on the math projections. I don't think they fundamentally give a shit about immigrants, only that they are playing the long game.

I'd give DACA and Amnesty in exchange for a hard lock down of the border, an end to chain migration, and a merit based system... in a heartbeat. Any pragmatic person knows the likelihood of mass deportations is almost zero. Might as well turn them into tax payers if allowing amnesty gets you an end to illegal immigration.

 

[Irishize]

https://youtu.be/LPjzfGChGlE

Maybe I missed him specifying but does the US take in 1M (on avg) people via immigration or illegal immigration or both each year?

 

[Legacy]

Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013

This was a comprehensive immigration bill that the Senate passed and was not brought to a vote in the House. They worked on it for years. While you may want to read the whole thing, here's the section on Family Immigration:

Title II - Immigrant Visas
Changes to family-based immigration:

There are four preference categories (1, 2A, 2B, 3, and 4) based on family relationships and a minimum of 226,000 and up to 480,000 visas are allocated to these family preferences (in practice, it has always been 226,000 per year for the last decade). Under the new system there will be two family preference categories and they will cover unmarried adult children; married adult children who file before age 31, and unmarried adult children of lawful permanent residents (the current 1, age-restricted 3, and 2B preferences respectively, with 2A being made unrestricted). The bill would expand the current V visa to include those with family relationships.

The bill repeals the availability of immigrant visas for siblings of U.S. citizens (the fourth preference) once 18 months have elapsed since the date of enactment. This preference has 2,473,114 backlogged applications as of the end of FY2012,[34] and a wait time of 12 years (considerably longer for Mexico and the Philippines).[35]

The bill amends the definition of “immediate relative,” which provides for unlimited access to visas and includes spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens, to include a child or spouse of an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence (the current 2A preference), and the child or spouse of an alien who is accompanying or following to join the child, parent or spouse of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The 2A preference has the lowest demand and shortest waiting time, but also a relatively large allocation of visas which could be used to help clear the backlogs in the other preferences.[35]

The bill amends the existing category for married sons and daughters of citizens of the United States (the third preference) to bar anyone from entering who is over 30 years of age.[citation needed] This preference has 830,906 backlogged applications as of the end of FY2012,[34] and a wait time of 10.5 years (considerably longer for Mexico and the Philippines).[35]

The bill repeals the Diversity Visa Program. Aliens who were or are selected for diversity immigrant visas for fiscal years 2013 or 2014 will be eligible to receive them. See Section 2303 - Repeal of the diversity visa program.

 

[Irish YJ]

https://youtu.be/LPjzfGChGlE

Maybe I missed him specifying but does the US take in 1M (on avg) people via immigration or illegal immigration or both each year?

There are about 1M per year of LPRs (legal permanent residents), and 800k to 1M naturalizations per year. They are "legal".

The illegal numbers are hard to figure. Some guestimate it based on the number of apprehensions at the border. This is flawed in many ways as different presidents enforce or don't enforce, fund or don't fund, etc.. Border patrol funding which was steadily rising for years, leveled off and even decreased under Obama year over year.

The other huge flaw is that it doesn't take into account visa overstays which is huge by itself. The government's attempt to track overstays is a joke. DHS said that 629,000 people overstayed their visas last year. There's also a lot of illegal entry by water which sidesteps border patrol (won't be counted).

Also, if you do any of your own research, be aware different groups and studies use different terms. You need to understand the difference between returns and removals. Also, criminal and interior. Interior (interior of the US, or non-border) has went down due to policy and rise of sanctuary cities.

Both returns and removals went down through the Obama years. For a frame of reference, Bill Clinton's number in 2000 was about 1.8 million removals+returns. Obama's 2012 total of remomals+returns was 600,000 (a third) and even less the following years.

So logically, 600k visa overstays last year (we only go after about 3% of them) so we'll say half intend to stay permanently or 300K. And let's say even with lowered border patrol funding, that we're successful 30% of the time in stopping them, that would another 1.2M. Also add that catch and release was only about 3% effective (95+% of them disappeared into the interior), add water arrival...

That would probably be around 1.5 per year or more. Even if that number is 1M, it's a problem. But again, it's all guestimates.