Here is the path

(08-13-2020 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, if we can provide a good enough legal pathway, then it discourages people from trying to be here illegally. If people decide to do that, then beef up our immigration enforcement. One of my personal issues with beefing up immigration enforcement without a corresponding revision of existing immigration policy is that it can have adverse impacts on people who are actively contributing to society and are a net positive.

OO gave a perfect example though of someone who doesn't care.... I used to work with Laredo National Bank, and they actually made a lot of home loans to illegals (usually a child born here, but the unreported income of the parents) based on the concept that they'd let a car go... and certainly furniture... but they'd move heaven and earth to keep their home.

I understand your point about party versus personal... but can you not understand how after feeling 'snookered' in 1986, 1990 and again in 2010... plus the constant focus on 'disband ice' that Republicans want to see a beefing up of immigration enforcement first? That was supposed to happen in 1986, and somehow never made it to the borders. Republicans 'gave' in 1986 and Democrats screwed them over.

I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to say... Hey Trump... you want a wall and no sanctuary cities... fine... but only if we get 'this'. Instead we got called racists for supporting what you seem to say here is at least somewhat reasonable.

Florida Pushes Toughest Immigration Crackdown in the Nation

Quote:Florida Legislature is considering a sweeping package of immigration measures that would represent the toughest crackdown on undocumented immigration by any state in more than a decade.

Expected to pass within weeks because Republicans have supermajorities in both chambers.

The bills would expose people to felony charges for sheltering, hiring and transporting undocumented immigrants; require hospitals to ask patients their immigration status and report to the state; invalidate out-of-state driver’s licenses issued to undocumented immigrants; and direct the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to provide assistance to federal authorities in enforcing the nation’s immigration laws.

Backers of the new bills say they are not opposed to immigration but are trying to make sure that newcomers follow the law.

“There’s a right way and a wrong way to come here,” Debbie Mayfield, a Republican state senator, said during a hearing on one of the bills. “We have a process in this country. We’re not trying to hurt or harm people who are here legally.”

In Texas, Republican state lawmakers have proposed a significant expansion in the immigration control program pushed by Gov. Greg Abbott.

Draft legislation presented in March calls for the state to take on some of the authority now exercised by the federal government, creating a border police force and making it a state felony, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, to illegally cross the border into Texas.

Texas has already deployed National Guard troops on the border and, along with Arizona, has bused newly arriving migrants to cities around the country.

After a record 2.5 million migrant interceptions at the border last year, both Republican governors have accused the Biden* administration of losing control of the situation.

(04-14-2023 02:05 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

So legit when GO posts stuff like this without referencing the source. I'm sure the data is impeccable though. "Here is the evidence!!!"...

(08-13-2020 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, if we can provide a good enough legal pathway, then it discourages people from trying to be here illegally. If people decide to do that, then beef up our immigration enforcement. One of my personal issues with beefing up immigration enforcement without a corresponding revision of existing immigration policy is that it can have adverse impacts on people who are actively contributing to society and are a net positive.

OO gave a perfect example though of someone who doesn't care.... I used to work with Laredo National Bank, and they actually made a lot of home loans to illegals (usually a child born here, but the unreported income of the parents) based on the concept that they'd let a car go... and certainly furniture... but they'd move heaven and earth to keep their home.

I understand your point about party versus personal... but can you not understand how after feeling 'snookered' in 1986, 1990 and again in 2010... plus the constant focus on 'disband ice' that Republicans want to see a beefing up of immigration enforcement first? That was supposed to happen in 1986, and somehow never made it to the borders. Republicans 'gave' in 1986 and Democrats screwed them over.

I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to say... Hey Trump... you want a wall and no sanctuary cities... fine... but only if we get 'this'. Instead we got called racists for supporting what you seem to say here is at least somewhat reasonable.

Very familiar with Laredo National.

Lad's theory would work in theory, but in practice I think the only thing that would slow the illegals would be to open the borders. Nobody wants to wait any significant period of time before reaping the benefits of being here. Mexicans crossing today expect to be working by Monday. So maybe we would have to go to same day registration, as in voting.

(04-14-2023 03:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  So legit when GO posts stuff like this without referencing the source. I'm sure the data is impeccable though. "Here is the evidence!!!"...

Or maybe most of us don't even look at it

If it's true, it's true... and if it's not, it's not.... and nothing Good posts is what drives me to believe the way I do or not.

(04-14-2023 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, if we can provide a good enough legal pathway, then it discourages people from trying to be here illegally. If people decide to do that, then beef up our immigration enforcement. One of my personal issues with beefing up immigration enforcement without a corresponding revision of existing immigration policy is that it can have adverse impacts on people who are actively contributing to society and are a net positive.

OO gave a perfect example though of someone who doesn't care.... I used to work with Laredo National Bank, and they actually made a lot of home loans to illegals (usually a child born here, but the unreported income of the parents) based on the concept that they'd let a car go... and certainly furniture... but they'd move heaven and earth to keep their home.

I understand your point about party versus personal... but can you not understand how after feeling 'snookered' in 1986, 1990 and again in 2010... plus the constant focus on 'disband ice' that Republicans want to see a beefing up of immigration enforcement first? That was supposed to happen in 1986, and somehow never made it to the borders. Republicans 'gave' in 1986 and Democrats screwed them over.

I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to say... Hey Trump... you want a wall and no sanctuary cities... fine... but only if we get 'this'. Instead we got called racists for supporting what you seem to say here is at least somewhat reasonable.

Very familiar with Laredo National.

Lad's theory would work in theory, but in practice I think the only thing that would slow the illegals would be to open the borders. Nobody wants to wait any significant period of time before reaping the benefits of being here. Mexicans crossing today expect to be working by Monday. So maybe we would have to go to same day registration, as in voting.

It always tickles me when old threads are dug up.

Similar to drug legalization and some other issues, I'm often a supporter of more legalization with better controls. So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship. I completely agree that time spent in the immigration process is a deterrent towards entering it, and reducing time spent is one way to reduce illegal immigration.

Probably easier said than done, though.

(04-17-2023 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2023 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, if we can provide a good enough legal pathway, then it discourages people from trying to be here illegally. If people decide to do that, then beef up our immigration enforcement. One of my personal issues with beefing up immigration enforcement without a corresponding revision of existing immigration policy is that it can have adverse impacts on people who are actively contributing to society and are a net positive.

OO gave a perfect example though of someone who doesn't care.... I used to work with Laredo National Bank, and they actually made a lot of home loans to illegals (usually a child born here, but the unreported income of the parents) based on the concept that they'd let a car go... and certainly furniture... but they'd move heaven and earth to keep their home.

I understand your point about party versus personal... but can you not understand how after feeling 'snookered' in 1986, 1990 and again in 2010... plus the constant focus on 'disband ice' that Republicans want to see a beefing up of immigration enforcement first? That was supposed to happen in 1986, and somehow never made it to the borders. Republicans 'gave' in 1986 and Democrats screwed them over.

I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to say... Hey Trump... you want a wall and no sanctuary cities... fine... but only if we get 'this'. Instead we got called racists for supporting what you seem to say here is at least somewhat reasonable.

Very familiar with Laredo National.

Lad's theory would work in theory, but in practice I think the only thing that would slow the illegals would be to open the borders. Nobody wants to wait any significant period of time before reaping the benefits of being here. Mexicans crossing today expect to be working by Monday. So maybe we would have to go to same day registration, as in voting.

It always tickles me when old threads are dug up.

Similar to drug legalization and some other issues, I'm often a supporter of more legalization with better controls. So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship. I completely agree that time spent in the immigration process is a deterrent towards entering it, and reducing time spent is one way to reduce illegal immigration.

Probably easier said than done, though.

Funny how we can agree and disagree at the same time.

Making a path easier certainly would create more usage of that path. If the goal was to create less people deemed "illegals", we could just make everything legal.

You mention better controls. Please explain how better controls coexists with easier paths.

Why do we have immigration controls, anyway? Are there any reasons to need to know who is in our country, and why, and where, beyond just giving employment to a bunch of Border Patrolmen? Why not just have the easiest path - open borders, no immigration agency, no customs, no border checks?

In that vein, I have a great idea on how to reduce crime. Just legalize everything.

As for taxes, wouldn't it be easier just to accept every person's word on what they owe?

(04-17-2023 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I completely agree that time spent in the immigration process is a deterrent towards entering it, and reducing time spent is one way to reduce illegal immigration.

Probably easier said than done, though.

Unless you're in favor of global citizenship or some other form of open borders, immigration is DESIGNED to be a slow and thorough process. The process can perhaps be streamlined and made faster as a result of technology, but technology is moving equally fast to thwart the intention of this process being slow.

What I mean by that is that we (as current cizitens) have a right to know who these people are who are entering... and the government has a duty to ensure that we are not allowing 'bad' people to enter.... and bad people are EAGER to thwart our discovery of their lies.

Someone shows up at our border and claims to be Julio Gonzalez of Chihuahua, Mexico. He has no papers and there are a dozen similarly named people in Chihuahau... and perhaps only 3 of them have fingerprints or other fairly definitive identity on file anywhere... and they're here with a baby, with no papers on the child at all.

Exactly what are we supposed to do that doesn't take some time and yet still 100% ensures the safety and security of our citizens?

The system is not supposed to be fast. It's supposed to be thorough. Barring a claim of asylum, they should be more than happy to file the paper work 'there' and wait for permission to enter... and if seeking asylum, they should be more than happy to accept 'safe' confinement (a detention center, but free from that which they were seeking asylum from).

If the detention center pending review isn't better than that which they're seeking asylum from, especilly with citizenship just a few weeks or a few months away, then maybe they aren't really seeking asylum.

(04-17-2023 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  As for taxes, wouldn't it be easier just to accept every person's word on what they owe?

That's one of the things that pissed me off the most about Biden's IRS plans.

At the same time he's reducing the path for immigrants, he's making 'being successful here' harder.

(04-17-2023 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2023 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, if we can provide a good enough legal pathway, then it discourages people from trying to be here illegally. If people decide to do that, then beef up our immigration enforcement. One of my personal issues with beefing up immigration enforcement without a corresponding revision of existing immigration policy is that it can have adverse impacts on people who are actively contributing to society and are a net positive.

OO gave a perfect example though of someone who doesn't care.... I used to work with Laredo National Bank, and they actually made a lot of home loans to illegals (usually a child born here, but the unreported income of the parents) based on the concept that they'd let a car go... and certainly furniture... but they'd move heaven and earth to keep their home.

I understand your point about party versus personal... but can you not understand how after feeling 'snookered' in 1986, 1990 and again in 2010... plus the constant focus on 'disband ice' that Republicans want to see a beefing up of immigration enforcement first? That was supposed to happen in 1986, and somehow never made it to the borders. Republicans 'gave' in 1986 and Democrats screwed them over.

I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to say... Hey Trump... you want a wall and no sanctuary cities... fine... but only if we get 'this'. Instead we got called racists for supporting what you seem to say here is at least somewhat reasonable.

Very familiar with Laredo National.

Lad's theory would work in theory, but in practice I think the only thing that would slow the illegals would be to open the borders. Nobody wants to wait any significant period of time before reaping the benefits of being here. Mexicans crossing today expect to be working by Monday. So maybe we would have to go to same day registration, as in voting.

It always tickles me when old threads are dug up.

Similar to drug legalization and some other issues, I'm often a supporter of more legalization with better controls. So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship. I completely agree that time spent in the immigration process is a deterrent towards entering it, and reducing time spent is one way to reduce illegal immigration.

Probably easier said than done, though.

Funny how we can agree and disagree at the same time.

Making a path easier certainly would create more usage of that path. If the goal was to create less people deemed "illegals", we could just make everything legal.

You mention better controls. Please explain how better controls coexists with easier paths.

Why do we have immigration controls, anyway? Are there any reasons to need to know who is in our country, and why, and where, beyond just giving employment to a bunch of Border Patrolmen? Why not just have the easiest path - open borders, no immigration agency, no customs, no border checks?

In that vein, I have a great idea on how to reduce crime. Just legalize everything.

As for taxes, wouldn't it be easier just to accept every person's word on what they owe?

I'd like to start by noting most of what you posted (bolded) has nothing to do with what I actually wrote, or are implying I made arguments I didn't.

My comment about better controls is related to the act defined as being illegal. As in, when someone is doing something illegal, they are not within the confines of controls - I'd rather create a system that makes that act legal within a realistic and, ideally, easy to navigate system. Marijuana legalization is a great example of this.

For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that. Controls are still needed to filter out the bad actors, a task which I very much think is needed. But if Bob wants to immigrate here and work in the fields, let's find a better legal path that is available and easy to him. If Bob instead has a degree in engineering, let's do the same. We currently have paths for both instances, but they are more limited and time consuming than I would like for them to be.

I want to encourage good actors to use the legal path so that they don't think the illegal path is worthwhile.

(04-17-2023 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2023 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-13-2020 04:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  OO gave a perfect example though of someone who doesn't care.... I used to work with Laredo National Bank, and they actually made a lot of home loans to illegals (usually a child born here, but the unreported income of the parents) based on the concept that they'd let a car go... and certainly furniture... but they'd move heaven and earth to keep their home.

I understand your point about party versus personal... but can you not understand how after feeling 'snookered' in 1986, 1990 and again in 2010... plus the constant focus on 'disband ice' that Republicans want to see a beefing up of immigration enforcement first? That was supposed to happen in 1986, and somehow never made it to the borders. Republicans 'gave' in 1986 and Democrats screwed them over.

I mean seriously, how hard would it have been to say... Hey Trump... you want a wall and no sanctuary cities... fine... but only if we get 'this'. Instead we got called racists for supporting what you seem to say here is at least somewhat reasonable.

Very familiar with Laredo National.

Lad's theory would work in theory, but in practice I think the only thing that would slow the illegals would be to open the borders. Nobody wants to wait any significant period of time before reaping the benefits of being here. Mexicans crossing today expect to be working by Monday. So maybe we would have to go to same day registration, as in voting.

It always tickles me when old threads are dug up.

Similar to drug legalization and some other issues, I'm often a supporter of more legalization with better controls. So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship. I completely agree that time spent in the immigration process is a deterrent towards entering it, and reducing time spent is one way to reduce illegal immigration.

Probably easier said than done, though.

Funny how we can agree and disagree at the same time.

Making a path easier certainly would create more usage of that path. If the goal was to create less people deemed "illegals", we could just make everything legal.

You mention better controls. Please explain how better controls coexists with easier paths.

Why do we have immigration controls, anyway? Are there any reasons to need to know who is in our country, and why, and where, beyond just giving employment to a bunch of Border Patrolmen? Why not just have the easiest path - open borders, no immigration agency, no customs, no border checks?

In that vein, I have a great idea on how to reduce crime. Just legalize everything.

As for taxes, wouldn't it be easier just to accept every person's word on what they owe?

I'd like to start by noting most of what you posted (bolded) has nothing to do with what I actually wrote, or are implying I made arguments I didn't.

My comment about better controls is related to the act defined as being illegal. As in, when someone is doing something illegal, they are not within the confines of controls - I'd rather create a system that makes that act legal within a realistic and, ideally, easy to navigate system. Marijuana legalization is a great example of this.

For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that. Controls are still needed to filter out the bad actors, a task which I very much think is needed. But if Bob wants to immigrate here and work in the fields, let's find a better legal path that is available and easy to him. If Bob instead has a degree in engineering, let's do the same. We currently have paths for both instances, but they are more limited and time consuming than I would like for them to be.

I want to encourage good actors to use the legal path so that they don't think the illegal path is worthwhile.

This is what I was responding to:

So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship.

In your response, you say this:

For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that

The two goals/groups (citizenship, work) may overlap to a degree, but they mostly don't.

I (and I think Numbers) have proposed worker's permits, where Mexicans wanting to work here can get a permit, which not only legalizes them temporarily, but provides a mechanism for keeping track of their whereabouts, but also provides for them to pay taxes. After a background check, which may or may not be more rigorous than the one required of citizens wanting to buy a gun, a permit holder would have to to provide a filed tax return annually to renew the permit. Employers would have to see the permit to hire the worker. Withholding would be the same as for a citizen. Felonies would be a disqualification. Children born here would NOT be automatic citizens.

For the group that primarily want to be here to be permanent citizen, a declaration of intent would be the beginning of a path. It should be a five year path, and should include a course on our history and government, an ESL course, and of course, annual tax returns. Children born to an immigrant while here would become citizens retroactively when one parent qualified and became a citizen.

Of course, an immigrant can do both. They must do one to be legal.

And of course, neither should be the result of a ten minute stop in a line at a port of entry.

(04-17-2023 12:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-14-2023 03:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Very familiar with Laredo National.

Lad's theory would work in theory, but in practice I think the only thing that would slow the illegals would be to open the borders. Nobody wants to wait any significant period of time before reaping the benefits of being here. Mexicans crossing today expect to be working by Monday. So maybe we would have to go to same day registration, as in voting.

It always tickles me when old threads are dug up.

Similar to drug legalization and some other issues, I'm often a supporter of more legalization with better controls. So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship. I completely agree that time spent in the immigration process is a deterrent towards entering it, and reducing time spent is one way to reduce illegal immigration.

Probably easier said than done, though.

Funny how we can agree and disagree at the same time.

Making a path easier certainly would create more usage of that path. If the goal was to create less people deemed "illegals", we could just make everything legal.

You mention better controls. Please explain how better controls coexists with easier paths.

Why do we have immigration controls, anyway? Are there any reasons to need to know who is in our country, and why, and where, beyond just giving employment to a bunch of Border Patrolmen? Why not just have the easiest path - open borders, no immigration agency, no customs, no border checks?

In that vein, I have a great idea on how to reduce crime. Just legalize everything.

As for taxes, wouldn't it be easier just to accept every person's word on what they owe?

I'd like to start by noting most of what you posted (bolded) has nothing to do with what I actually wrote, or are implying I made arguments I didn't.

My comment about better controls is related to the act defined as being illegal. As in, when someone is doing something illegal, they are not within the confines of controls - I'd rather create a system that makes that act legal within a realistic and, ideally, easy to navigate system. Marijuana legalization is a great example of this.

For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that. Controls are still needed to filter out the bad actors, a task which I very much think is needed. But if Bob wants to immigrate here and work in the fields, let's find a better legal path that is available and easy to him. If Bob instead has a degree in engineering, let's do the same. We currently have paths for both instances, but they are more limited and time consuming than I would like for them to be.

I want to encourage good actors to use the legal path so that they don't think the illegal path is worthwhile.

This is what I was responding to:

So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship.

In your response, you say this:

For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that

The two goals/groups (citizenship, work) may overlap to a degree, but they mostly don't.

I (and I think Numbers) have proposed worker's permits, where Mexicans wanting to work here can get a permit, which not only legalizes them temporarily, but provides a mechanism for keeping track of their whereabouts, but also provides for them to pay taxes. After a background check, which may or may not be more rigorous than the one required of citizens wanting to buy a gun, a permit holder would have to to provide a filed tax return annually to renew the permit. Employers would have to see the permit to hire the worker. Withholding would be the same as for a citizen. Felonies would be a disqualification. Children born here would NOT be automatic citizens.

For the group that primarily want to be here to be permanent citizen, a declaration of intent would be the beginning of a path. It should be a five year path, and should include a course on our history and government, an ESL course, and of course, annual tax returns. Children born to an immigrant while here would become citizens retroactively when one parent qualified and became a citizen.

Of course, an immigrant can do both. They must do one to be legal.

And of course, neither should be the result of a ten minute stop in a line at a port of entry.

Overall, that sounds good to me and is in line with what I want. Clear and easy paths to legal status (be it permanent or temporary) - I see both of your options achieving that.

(04-17-2023 01:17 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 12:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-17-2023 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It always tickles me when old threads are dug up.

Similar to drug legalization and some other issues, I'm often a supporter of more legalization with better controls. So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship. I completely agree that time spent in the immigration process is a deterrent towards entering it, and reducing time spent is one way to reduce illegal immigration.

Probably easier said than done, though.

Funny how we can agree and disagree at the same time.

Making a path easier certainly would create more usage of that path. If the goal was to create less people deemed "illegals", we could just make everything legal.

You mention better controls. Please explain how better controls coexists with easier paths.

Why do we have immigration controls, anyway? Are there any reasons to need to know who is in our country, and why, and where, beyond just giving employment to a bunch of Border Patrolmen? Why not just have the easiest path - open borders, no immigration agency, no customs, no border checks?

In that vein, I have a great idea on how to reduce crime. Just legalize everything.

As for taxes, wouldn't it be easier just to accept every person's word on what they owe?

I'd like to start by noting most of what you posted (bolded) has nothing to do with what I actually wrote, or are implying I made arguments I didn't.

My comment about better controls is related to the act defined as being illegal. As in, when someone is doing something illegal, they are not within the confines of controls - I'd rather create a system that makes that act legal within a realistic and, ideally, easy to navigate system. Marijuana legalization is a great example of this.

For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that. Controls are still needed to filter out the bad actors, a task which I very much think is needed. But if Bob wants to immigrate here and work in the fields, let's find a better legal path that is available and easy to him. If Bob instead has a degree in engineering, let's do the same. We currently have paths for both instances, but they are more limited and time consuming than I would like for them to be.

I want to encourage good actors to use the legal path so that they don't think the illegal path is worthwhile.

This is what I was responding to:

So faster immigration review (like a same-day registration) would be ideal to encourage people to follow the legal path towards citizenship.

In your response, you say this:

For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that

The two goals/groups (citizenship, work) may overlap to a degree, but they mostly don't.

I (and I think Numbers) have proposed worker's permits, where Mexicans wanting to work here can get a permit, which not only legalizes them temporarily, but provides a mechanism for keeping track of their whereabouts, but also provides for them to pay taxes. After a background check, which may or may not be more rigorous than the one required of citizens wanting to buy a gun, a permit holder would have to to provide a filed tax return annually to renew the permit. Employers would have to see the permit to hire the worker. Withholding would be the same as for a citizen. Felonies would be a disqualification. Children born here would NOT be automatic citizens.

For the group that primarily want to be here to be permanent citizen, a declaration of intent would be the beginning of a path. It should be a five year path, and should include a course on our history and government, an ESL course, and of course, annual tax returns. Children born to an immigrant while here would become citizens retroactively when one parent qualified and became a citizen.

Of course, an immigrant can do both. They must do one to be legal.

And of course, neither should be the result of a ten minute stop in a line at a port of entry.

Overall, that sounds good to me and is in line with what I want. Clear and easy paths to legal status (be it permanent or temporary) - I see both of your options achieving that.

Of course, we will still have illegals wading the rivers, as there will be:

a. rejectees, who do not clear the background check, (or the tax obligation)
b. Impatient people who want to get to work NOW and don't want to go through the relatively slow legal process, {or incur the tax obligation) and
c. Those who want to bring their entire family with them, even though they may be the only worker.

(04-17-2023 11:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'd rather create a system that makes that act legal within a realistic and, ideally, easy to navigate system. Marijuana legalization is a great example of this.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm not following how they are remotely the same.

Quote:For immigration, I'd rather adjust our system to make it much quicker and easier for those who want to come here and work to be able to do that. Controls are still needed to filter out the bad actors, a task which I very much think is needed. But if Bob wants to immigrate here and work in the fields, let's find a better legal path that is available and easy to him. If Bob instead has a degree in engineering, let's do the same. We currently have paths for both instances, but they are more limited and time consuming than I would like for them to be.

I want to encourage good actors to use the legal path so that they don't think the illegal path is worthwhile.

Here is the problem though...
The guy with the engineering degree likely has a fairly easy to follow paper trail... especially since he is probably providing that paper trail and wants to trade off of it.
The guy who wants to work in the fields, if he has an easy to follow paper trail should have an easier time than the one who doesn't... but the reality (to your 'realistic' comment) is that many of them do not. Sometimes it is because those countries are poor and/or poorly run.... sometimes it is because the paper trail would not help them get here.

We NEED to own the fact that either these are 'first world' nations with paperwork that can be trusted and thus 'asylum' is mostly a crock... or that they are third world nations with paperwork that cannot and we need to do it all ourselves... and that takes time.

On a related vein, but not related to anything you've said lad....

to those who often speak of the poem on the Statue of Liberty... what is often left off is that at the time of the writing of that poem, we were still fairly aggressively expanding our nation.... and we had lots of places that wanted to expand their populations. To me, those two things go hand in hand. If we need to accept so many of these people for 'asylum' or even just a 'better place to live' than they have in our neighboring countries, then perhaps we need to be 'annexing' these neighboring countries. It doesn't need to be a war. Why don't we just buy them?

Because otherwise, Trump is right (not that he meant it this way). Why WOULDN'T Mexico encourage anyone wanting to come north from central America just bypass Mexico and go straight to us? Why WOULDN'T people 'wanted' in Mexico and Central America want to find ways to 'blend in' to the sub-culture of illgal immigrants in the US, and to exploit them for profit... and why WOULDN'T those who seek to do this nation harm, seek to exploit those same pathways?

Trillions in drugs and guns don't cross our southern border because Mexico is doing a good job of keeping them from being produced or trafficked. I'm not placing the burden on Mexico for this. The burden is ours. I'm just explaining the issue we face.