A Green Light for Illegal Immigration?

"RAMOS: And that you won't deport immigrants who don't have a criminal record?

CLINTON: Yes.

RAMOS: ... and those who don't have a criminal record.

CLINTON: Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported. I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That is exactly what I will do.

***********

"RAMOS: And can you promise not to deport immigrants who don't have a criminal record?

SANDERS: I can make that promise."

Transcript of Debate on 9 March 2016

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

I decided that we would not have partisan arguments on SST but it seems to me that Clinton's and Sander's remarks concerning adult aliens in the US who do not have a criminal record (other than the illegal residence itself) would apply to all who are presently in the US or who will come in the future.

This is a matter of national import in terms of the ability to control immigration.

Surely the announcement of such a policy would trigger a mass effort to enter the US by any means possible.  pl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/transcript-the-post-univision-democratic-debate-annotated/

Comments

[Old Microbiologist]

Either we have a legal immigration policy or we don't. Rewarding law breakers isn't the answer. Amnesty is a poor choice as well and it is an insult to all who emigrated I into the US through the extremely difficult process. Very few of these economic immigrants would qualify under normal immigration policies which requires a demonstration of value to the American society, including proof of health insurance, a return ticket home, sufficient funds or solid guaranteed employment, and a clean background check. This not unusual or extraordinary for immigrants without refugee status. Some countries like Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland require a substantial deposit for a significant period of time. For example in if you want to retire in Australia it is $4 million dollars for 5 years. So, what the politicians are arguing is actually very unusual and not in keeping with international norms.

What could be done is to build a serious wall as suggested, increase the crime to a felony level, and maximum fines and/or imprisonment. We could do what the Israelis do and mount fully automated machine guns on towers. No one seems to be too upset about that. I wonder why?

It us, of course, a political hot potato, and it is breaking down into what the people (majority) want verses what the R2P politicians want for us. Perhaps it is time for the politicians to remember they serve at the will of the people and Represent us.

[Laguerre]

The movement of "illegal aliens" into the US from the south, or in Europe of refugees from the Middle east, is so common, and of such a large scale, that some thinking is required.

It is evident that these people think that a life in the west will be be better than staying home.

The only way to change this is a change of policy on the part of the US and other western powers towards creating peace in the MIddle East, and looking towards economic development, rather than fitting in with the political requirements of one or the other of the powers.

[turcopolier]

Laguerre

Your attention is wandering. My post has nothing to do with European refugee problems. There is massive US investment in Latin America. the process of out-migration of US business has been so large under NAFTA that the job loss in the US resulting therefrom is a major factor in creating the political rebellion now underway. Does foreign manufacture of goods with low labor costs imported to the US make for lower consumer prices on these goods? Yes, but one must have a job and money to be able to buy these imported goods. pl

[turcopolier]

OMB

"Rewarding law breakers isn't the answer." My post is about rewarding NON-law breakers. pl

[BrotherJoe]

Come on in. Make yourself at home. Apply for welfare. Apply for Social Security. Apply for earned income tax credit http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2015/mar/09/john-fredericks/john-fredericks-says-every-illegal-immigrant-can-b/.
If you're given citizenship then bring in your elderly parents and put them on Medicare; bring in your brothers and sisters, and those of your spouse.

We're no longer a nation. We're a Motel 6.

[elaine]

Wide open borders are the fast track to One World Government & if we don't
like it we're racists & xenophobes & must be reeducated in the closest
FEMA camp...something like that

[Old Microbiologist]

Immigration visa requirements as shown for the US Embassy in Trinidad: http://trinidad.usembassy.gov/mobile//what_are_the_immigrant_visa_application_requirements.html

[Old Microbiologist]

By overstaying a visa or entering into the country without a visa the person is in fact already breaking the law. Perhaps you mean serious law violations? Although in many countries overstaying a visa gets you prison time. I wouldn't do it in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

[turcopolier]

OMB
Obviously I mean people with a criminal record for other than illegal entry and residence. That is what Clinton and Sanders meant as well. So, you do not think illegal entry and residence are "serious crime." Interesting. pl

[turcopolier]

OMB

Trinidad? What is your point? pl

[SmoothieX12]

Among many things which define real nationhood are state borders. In fact, they are one of few very first things which define nationhood. Whom and how nation allows to enter is solely prerogative of the state. Now, in US "elites" we have people who would give Suslov's Ideological Department of Central Committee a run for their money in terms of blind indoctrination and, in fact, go even further by denying the ultimate vital necessity of border control for the nation. Going even further, in these people we have those who see no value in nation at all. In fact, they are on the mission of destroying the nation-state as such. As Correli Barnett observed; "According to liberal thinking a nation was no more than so many human atoms who happened to live under the same set of laws"(c). Terms such as "nation", "culture", "ethnicity", "faith", "common historical fate" are a "crimethink" in deep recesses of US "academe" and political "elites".

[kao_hsien_chih]

I think the talk about not deporting illegals is foolish pandering. I am honestly dumbfounded that politicians think that promising to not deport illegal aliens from same country of ancestry as Hispanic citizens should win the latter's votes, and even more so if that actually works. There are no doubt practical reasons that rounding up and deporting all illegals already in country is not cost effective in the short term, but to suggest implicitly open borders (that is, not deporting those who make it in if they cause no further trouble) is absurd. In fact, I am starting to share Tyler's view on immigration: amnesties and/or legalization processes are a joke. A real national ID card system, coupled with a serious immigration enforcement effort, is a must, I think.

[kao_hsien_chih]

Motel 6 charges money that becomes profit for whoever owns Motel 6. We, as nation don't make money off of illegals, although businesspeople who employ and exploit them do, I suppose. It is unseemly that the latter should be subsidized in this manner.

[pj]

I read an essay on immigration.some time ago by a Swedish (?) political scientist. (I wish I could find it, but I can't.) To summarize - Immigration acts a relief valve for countries with serious structural and economic problems. People with drive and initiative become frustrated and migrate to countries where their willingness to work hard will be rewarded. In the long run, this is a serious problem for their home country, as the very people who could be the foot soldiers of a movement for positive change desert the home country, leaving behind those who accept the situation, either as overlords, or subordinated workers. He argued for a 'tough love' policy on immigration which would shut the doors, hoping to promote change back in the migrants home.

[rjj]

been thinking "nomenklatura" would be a better term than "elites."

[Trey N]

How ironic that Mexico, of all places (after their constant squealing about how the US treats their citizens who have entered the US illegally)has this immigration policy:

"At the current exchange rate, you need bank statements showing an income of just under $1300 a month or proven investments or savings of $206,000, to get a temporal visa (temporary residence). The Mexican government’s position is that you are welcome but Mexico is not going to support you."

http://www.ajijiclaw.com/immigration/

--------------
The best way to solve the illegal immigrant problem is to stop battling the smoke and start fighting the fire: don't concentrate on stopping/rounding up the illegals, fine the shit out of those US citizens and businesses that hire them!

Raid the meat packers, the construction companies, the rich who keep fulltime cooks/maids/lawnkeepers etc and do two things: deport the workers, and charge a humongous financial penalty on the employers. THAT would solve the whole "problem" in a heartbeat, but it will never happen -- those employers are making too much profit off the illegals, + they have the political clout to make such a policy DOA by their bought-off pols.

Oh, and one more thing: at least stop the insane policy of giving US citizenship to "anchor babies." It's a small step and just a start, but it may be an acceptable bone for the powers mentioned above to throw to the growing anti-illegal movement....

[different clue]

Old Microbiologist,

For every 100 foot wall, there is a 101 foot ladder. It is bad that the two Dem nominee-wannabes have promised this green light to unlimited illegal immigration. The other long-standing green light to illegal immigration for years now has been standing permission to employERS to illegally hire illegal aliens. And yes, a studied refusal to prosecute and imprison the illegal employERS of illegal aliens is a stealth green-light issued on behalf of the illegal employERS by their compliant government.

Hard time in bad prisons for every person who hires even one illegal alien for even one day would stop people from illegally hiring illegal aliens. If everyone currently hiring an illegal alien were given a month to let their illegal alien go or face prosecution and prison, then they might well let them go. And the illegal aliens would self-deport because there would be no more economic reason for them to stay here.

About the special case of Mexico: many of the illegal Mexicans here were driven out of Mexico by the carefully engineered destruction of their rural and bussiness livelihoods by a NAFTA which was written to achieve that effect on purpose. The abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization of Mexico and especially its agriculture would restore a functioning Mexican agricultural economy for those millions of naftastinian economic exiles to return to. So abolishing NAFTA is a key part of solving the illegal alien problem.

[charly]

Illegal immigrants are not a problem. Illegal workers are and that is easily solved by issuing hefty fines to employers

[Peter C]

Any bets on when it's OK to not be a citizen in order to hold a classification.

[mbrenner]

Let's face the uncomfortable truth: this is a problem(s) for which there is really no satisfactory solution. That is not a recommendation for inaction. But simply to underscore the inescapable fact that whatever combination of policies we come up with will leave most Americans discontented on some reasonable grounds or other. This is what happens when you leave pathological situations to fester for decades - doing things on a disjointed basis (not very competently). Some of those things actually aggravate the condition (iatrogenic medicine). One could draw a rough analogy with American actions and inactions in the Middle East over the past 15 years. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and now Yemen. Actually, it's probably easier to imagine some moves over there (e.g. confronting the Saudis and Israelis, Turks) than it is to imagine serious, if partial solutions to the immigration situation.

Still, a few points seem fundamental. One, you have to be able to control your borders - perhaps not hermetically but for the most part. That is not now the case. I personally don't know enough about the particulars to say if a 40 foot wall would be part of the answer. From what I hear around Texas, most of the illegals don't wade across the Rio Grande and then trek through the desert - they come through or around major border check points.

Two, the organization and management of the relevant border agencies leaves a lot to be desired. Intersecting jurisdictions is part of the problem. Think of airport security: 85% of illicit, banned materials get through when tests are done. That's what the border is like. Or think of the VA. What to do? I don't know - except for the conviction that the US government should not hire consultants to find an answer.

Three, processing, screening and short-term detention have to be regularized and speeded-up. See above. Reliance on private, profit-making companies is a national disgrace. We cannot tolerate human trafficking, abuse, and profiteering. It's the government's job and the government's responsibility.
The same holds for those illegals detained after being resident in the US.

Four, something like the "dream act" makes sense. Absolute justice? No. But it's a hell of a lot better than random raids or mass deportations.

Five, separating parents from children is unacceptable. Not easy to avoid and some legislative action may be needed. However, any option is better than creating de facto orphans.

Six, there have to be frank talks with Mexican authorities in regard to most aspects of whatever package of actions under consideration. Admittedly, Mexico is a mess. Yet, we're quite happy with the country being run by bands of crooked, inept politicos so long as they serve American commercial and political interests. That calculus has to change.

Seventh, the economic consequences of NAFTA have fed outward migration. Millions of farmers have been dispossessed by the forced opening of Mexico's agricultural markets to American agro-business. Millions of small businesses have been bankrupted by the unrestricted take-over of retail commerce by giant American chains. Many of the impoverished head north.

Eight, as to Central America, we continue to follow the 100 + year old policy of backing the oligarchs against popular ref0ormers - e.g. Obama/Clinton's backing for the coup in Honduras that has turned the place into the homicide/drug capital of the world. This is ridiculous; Che is long dead.

[steve]

When Trump said he would build a wall and make Mexico pay for it he guaranteed himself a certain percentage of the GOP vote. When Clinton promises to not deport anyone she sees to gain a certain percentage of the from Democrats. I think they are both lying just to get votes.

Steve

[Amir]

Dear Old Microbiologist. Iran is a host to +/- 3.000.00 Afghan refugees and +/- 2.000.000 Iraqi refugees. Yes, you read it correctly, REFUGEES, not immigrants. The government has to provide at the very least some minimal services to them, under current international obligations. There are scores of illegals and although they are treated not on equal footing as with common citizens, they don't get prison time for being illegal neither. They end up being part of the underground economy, as is the case in US.

Comparing what happens to someone when they break a law in Iran vs Saudi Arabia, is the best joke that I have heard in a long time.

If you are talking about the 3 US hikers who were arrested in 2009, when they by mistake crossed the Iran-Iraq border, you can read more about it at http://www.salon.com/2011/09/26/iran_105 and focus somewhat on what the victims themselves thought about it.

[turcopolier]

mbrenner

Mexico is a sovereign country. If we want to change their system to something we would be happier with we would have to occupy the country as we did once before. I don't think it is worth the trouble. We would not be welcomed as liberators. "Four, something like the "dream act" makes sense. Absolute justice? No. But it's a hell of a lot better than random raids or mass deportations." Makes sense for what? You want a general amnesty? Are you in favor of a "get home free card" for those who get across the border with a relatively unblemished history? Would this not be a kind of social Darwinism in which we tell people, "well, you must be the best there was in that place you came from?" pl

[optimax]

Immigration is the main reason Trump is doing well. People are sick of it.

I'm against a wall for ecological reasons, many of our furry friends depend on the Rio Grand's water.

A better way to deport illegals and keep them from leaving their sh!thole countries and making the US a sh!thole is make every employer prove his employees have accurate social security numbers, either e-verify or some other means. If the employer can't, he isn't allowed to deduct their wages on his tax forms. You have to hurt the employer's bottom line to be effective. And it's a cheap way of reducing illegal immigration.

[Amir]

In other words, the profits are privatized and the losses are socialized. This is called CRONICAPITALISM and U.S. has been en route to mimic Jeltsin's U.S.S.R. and later -Russia. It is not telling of a man to beat down on the downtrodden and lick the heels of the very people who are emptying his pockets. Xenophobia only serves to deflect the anger of the populi. Better use the energy to get the money, where the money is and it ain't in the pockets of the paupers.