Immigration debate

I'm anxious to see if GOP and Trump hold their ground on this or just cave and skulk back into the corner when the chorus of "racists" and "xenophobes" comes out. This could be huge if they manage to hold their ground.

 

They've already compromised quite a bit by offering a pathway to citizenship to the Dreamers. As for whether or not they fold on the rest of the issue, it depends on how well they advocate on the issue. Are they prepared with facts and evidence to support their position, or are they going to be a scattered mess like they've usually been? They did a much better job on the January shutdown than I've ever seen them do in 27 years of following politics, so that's encouraging. However, this will be a much bigger fight with much stronger media support for the Democrats

My biggest disappointment with them is that they're not pushing for E-verify. That's almost impossible for Democrats to oppose and would do far more to actually stop illegal immigration than any wall would. The only reasonable basis to oppose it is the burden on business position that libertarians and iatrogenic have raised, and Democrats obviously don't have the credibility to make such an argument. I disagree with that position, but it's at least a good faith reason to oppose it. Democrats will most likely talk about it leading to more employment discrimination, but most people will see that argument as weak.

 

I keep pointing out that "media" is plural for medium. Arguments most popular in backing the Republican position in right wing media are racist. Fox has lots of viewers, money and influence ...so I really think we should expect them to be on the more reasonable side of those informing and energizing the rank and file who hold Republican positions. I was watching ing a talking head discussion on Fox with one person trying to offer a rational approach for the dreamers along the lines of the compromise suggested by Trump's meeting with legislators ... while three other talking heads and the host shoulting him down suggesting he'd be in favor a member of MS13 murdering his daughter or another illegal killing some of the rest of us driving drunk.

Donald Trump, since the day he announced his run for President, has sought to equate dreamers and their parents as rapists and murderers (though allowing some might be good people) and has relentlessly taken the tactic of singling out horrific crimes committed by the undocumented as recently as the State of Union address. As I understand it he and allies want to focus more and more attention to crimes committed by the undocumented among us -- and not the fact that rate of violent criminal activity among the undocumented pretty much follows the statistical average of the US as a whole.

I'm pretty much in favor of a zero tolerance approach for criminal activity among the undocumented. Get one DWI .... get deported. Caught dealing drugs get deported. But attempts to marginalize the whole by highlighting the exceptionally criminal is not a tactic of the fair-minded.

 

Before hopping on the e-verify train, read this article.

Ron Paul does a pretty good job of highlighting multiple concerns, though a few of the points he makes seem overblown and do not resonate with me. Excerpt follows.

 

I posted this on 100 days in response to a comment made by our good buddy Seattle Husker but then I saw this thread so I'm dumping it all on here too!

I can't speak for most people. But I don't understand why the idea that we should vigorously enforce our immigration laws including deterrents and impediments to entry should be considered a sign that people are blaming their personal problems on illegal aliens. I don't blame them. I've lived in Texas since 1970 and in Laredo from the time I was 12 - 17, then home for summer every year and numerous visits since then. I've grown up with them so to speak. But I don't compete in the marketplace with illegal aliens. They've done nothing to me. It's real simple to me. I want to see our laws enforced. Not mindless, unjust laws such as were fought by Dr. King, but normal laws that are CLEARLY being abused with an enterprise in place to bring them over and then to enable their presence here. It's almost a RICO violation if you think about it because LULAC and La RAZA along with people like Gavin Newsome and the entire sanctuary city phenomenon is clearly a coordinated attempt to circumvent existing law. Why should someone just ignore all of that?

It is infuriating to me to be called a racist when I'm half-Cuban to hold these views. I consider that to be a political tactic. I also consider it to be intellectually lazy. EDIT: And if I was honest with myself (ok, here goes, I will be honest), I'd say the tactics of the Left have inflamed me on this issue. And it has inflamed millions of others. This is what spawns comments like, "Take America back" though that is not my rallying cry but I do understand it's roots in the POLITICS of America today.

Do you consider our immigration laws (requiring an orderly entrance built around identification and the desire not to accept people with infectious diseases, who will be a burden on society as soon as they arrive; this is not to mention national security threats or cartel tentacles being extended into our country) to be unjust? Why does every country in the world have them. They are not inherently racist. We have a theoretical limit here in our country in terms of population and I am hoping someone is keeping an eye on that. An open border, all are welcome policy WITHOUT VETTING (which describes the de facto policy coordinated by the enablers for illegal aliens) is not going to fly.

Here is an interesting opinion from a man who is known as an extreme environmentalist; an eco-terrorist if you will. His name is Paul Watson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson):

"Immigration is one of the leading contributors to population growth"

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and...the-nation-on-population-and-immigration.html

"Captain Watson Speaks to the Nation on Population and Immigration

With most of the major environmental organizations intimidated, reluctant, and decidedly voiceless on the issue, Captain Paul Watson spoke out on the Fox National News Network on May 15th in a broadcast heard from Maine to Hawaii on the issue of growing U.S. populations and the impact on both the U.S. and the global environment.

Captain Watson took advantage of the current controversy over illegal immigration to point out the environmental concerns about escalating U.S. populations. He advocated reducing immigration numbers to a level that will achieve U.S. population stabilization.

"The United States has the highest population growth rate of any nation with a 1.3% annual increase," said Watson. "This rate of increase, if it remains at this level will give the United States a population approaching or exceeding one billion by the end of the 21st Century."

Carl Pope, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, argues that it does not matter how many people enter the United States because the world population is not affected because people move around.

"What Carl is ignoring here is the reality that the United States is the highest per capita resource consuming nation in the world. Every new American increases global resource utilization," said Watson, "The United States produces 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Population stabilization in the U.S. is not only good for the United States, it is good for the planet."

Paul Watson also pointed out that population growth contributes to urban sprawl and is the single greatest threat to species diversity.

When asked why other conservation organizations would not comment on the issue, Watson said that it is a choice between being ecologically correct or being seen as politically correct, and unfortunately, most environmental organizations are more concerned with being seen as politically correct.

One critic sent an e-mail to Captain Watson demanding to know what this issue has to do with protecting whales and marine life. "Stick to what you do best and don't get involved in this issue," the message said.

Captain Watson responded by pointing out that escalating human populations are the greatest threat to the survival of oceanic species. More people means more pollution, more agricultural run-off, more fishing, more pressure to resume whaling, to lower seal populations, and it means more ships and more resource extraction.

"The three most important ecological laws are diversity, interdependence, and finite resources. Diversity of species on this planet and the interdependence of these species is essential to the survival of all species, including our own. There are limits to growth and for human populations to increase means we must steal the resources and thus carrying capacity of the environment from other species. They must be removed to increase our numbers. This will result in less diversity and less interdependence and ultimately it will have grave consequences for humanity," Captain Watson said.

"I don't say what it is popular to say," added Watson. "I don't hold right or left political values. I speak from an ecological perspective. Being concerned about population growth in the United States is an ecologically-correct position. There is nothing political about it."

MARK SAY'S: Now you (Seattle Husker) may totally disagree with this and think that migration to the US does not result in an NET INCREASE in pollution/consumption as contrasted if they all just stayed in Mexico but his opinion is interesting, he's clearly on the Left and as the article indicated, he was told to keep his mouth shut on this issue.

Is he a racist?

All that being said, I am in favor of a clear, achievable path for the Dreamers to become citizens. I know some Dreamers. I know they are scared. But in return I want NO MORE DREAMERS (of course there will always be some). Their parents are the one's to be blamed. Mexico is to be blamed because instead of HELPING THEIR OWN PEOPLE they are attacking Trump and acting all offended about it. Well, that's not my political problem. That is THEIR (meaning Mexico) political problem. The wall is just symbolic of the deal that must be made. No wall (literal or figurative) then no deal. Period. We're not going to agree to something that creates massive incentives for more to come. And I believe wholeheartedly that an amnesty deal with no barrier to entry for those who circumvent our laws will put us back in the same position.

And Gavin Newsome knows it.

 

I like some of R. Pauls positions but on this one he is wrong.
1. EVerify- it is simple. run the name/social through a database and bing, you get an answer. If the applicant thinks the answer is wrong. They submit a document to get it fixed. They get the presumption of citizenship while it is being rectified and the employer is held harmless because they followed the law and procedure. Easy.
2. as for a huge database target for cyber crime. That cats out of the bag already. With all the breaches we've already had, most of that data is in the wild already for anyone that really wants it. I've got a foot in the cyber threat world and many of our clients shrug their shoulders when asked about leaks. They know that there is already cover from the Equifax breach. Citizens/customers/clients would have a very hard time ever claiming that their identity was stolen because of a subsequent breach since the Equifax breach was so massive.
3. Small employers could/would just outsource this requirement to a 3rd party like they do drug screening now.

Even if the system is only 50% accurate in year one, the mandatory implementation of E-verify would cause illegal immigrants to bug out on their own. If the odds are 1 in 2 that they will be identified and immediately identified/detained/deported then they just won't apply. It's the same logic that sanctuary cities are claiming is keeping illegal immigrants from reporting crime. If they think they'll be identified, they just won't participate.

Actual citizens can take the job anyway with the above measures and they don't have a clock working against them because it takes as long as it takes to be verified. It won't hurt them because they already have the job. And once they clear up their record the first time, the error rate for subsequent hiring will be much lower.

 

Interesting side battle -- A Texas lawyer living on property near the border (unclear if he is owner or lessee) removed a Border Patrol surveillance camera. They put it there without permission to enter the property (and they want their camera back). He has also sued them in federal court -- kind of a twisted tale
https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Texas-rancher-sues-feds-state-after-finding-12608179.php?utm_campaign=twitter-premium&utm_source=CMS Sharing Button&utm_medium=social

".... Congress has given the Homeland Security Department permission to patrol private property within 25 miles of the border without a warrant, but experts say the courts have never defined how much authority agents have on private land. Federal agents cannot enter “dwellings” without a court order.

If a judge finds that his property is outside the 25-mile zone, as Palacios has asked, the lawsuit might not resolve those questions...."​