Trump immigration megathread

[Beet]

I knew it. The man who is setting up an agency to publish a list of crimes by immigrants is not going to support a path to legal status, even if it does prevent these people from voting.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I knew it. The man who is setting up an agency to publish a list of crimes by immigrants is not going to support a path to legal status, even if it does prevent these people from voting.

The path to legal status is for non-criminals (sans the crime of entering illegally) . 

[Beet]

I knew it. The man who is setting up an agency to publish a list of crimes by immigrants is not going to support a path to legal status, even if it does prevent these people from voting.

The path to legal status is for non-criminals (sans the crime of entering illegally) . 

But did he mention a path to legal status for these non-criminals? This report suggests he didn't.

[Frodo]

How difficult is it to immigrate to this country compared to other western democracies, like say the United Kingdom?  

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I knew it. The man who is setting up an agency to publish a list of crimes by immigrants is not going to support a path to legal status, even if it does prevent these people from voting.

The path to legal status is for non-criminals (sans the crime of entering illegally) . 

But did he mention a path to legal status for these non-criminals? This report suggests he didn't.

With my coffee this morning they were reporting he was open to the idea, whatever that means.

[Dr. Arch]

"A continual stream of disgust" is the best way I can describe how I feel about him at this point.

[Santander]

In all honesty, Canadian-style immigration isn't a terrible idea, and I don't think the Bannonites will like what it will actually entail (many more Chinese and Indians, for starters)

Most of the Chinese in Canada ended up there in two waves - the first was the exodus from HK to Canada and Australia in the 80s and 90s, of which many have returned, and the second was Mainlanders buying their way in through the easiest "investment" immigration scheme in the Western world, which only required giving the government an interest-free loan of C$500k for 5 years or so.

Many in the first group returned from Canada and Australia to HK after the handover, where they and their children formed a rather cliquey and elitist social class. The ones who remained are model immigrants, often Anglican, and their children are more or less fully assimilated into middle-class society. But the circumstances of the pre-handover exodus from HK were unique and are not the same as those of the current stock of Asian immigrants, particularly from mainland China. If you think about how one would acquire $500k cash in a country like China, let's just say they're not sending their best.

How difficult is it to immigrate to this country compared to other western democracies, like say the United Kingdom?  

Much easier for family-sponsored immigration, providing you were not born in mainland China, India or the Philippines, which are all subscribed way beyond quotas. Generally more difficult for self- or employer-sponsored immigration. Basically the norm for investment immigration. The UK is a bad comparison because it basically had to shut down its borders to non-EU immigrants (even spouses, in some cases) because of excessive immigration from Eastern Europe. The UK is also a jus sanguinis, Old World country with a different history of immigration than a jus soli, New World country like the US.

[KingSweden]

In all honesty, Canadian-style immigration isn't a terrible idea, and I don't think the Bannonites will like what it will actually entail (many more Chinese and Indians, for starters)

Most of the Chinese in Canada ended up there in two waves - the first was the exodus from HK to Canada and Australia in the 80s and 90s, of which many have returned, and the second was Mainlanders buying their way in through the easiest "investment" immigration scheme in the Western world, which only required giving the government an interest-free loan of C$500k for 5 years or so.

Many in the first group returned from Canada and Australia to HK after the handover, where they and their children formed a rather cliquey and elitist social class. The ones who remained are model immigrants, often Anglican, and their children are more or less fully assimilated into middle-class society. But the circumstances of the pre-handover exodus from HK were unique and are not the same as those of the current stock of Asian immigrants, particularly from mainland China. If you think about how one would acquire $500k cash in a country like China, let's just say they're not sending their best.

How difficult is it to immigrate to this country compared to other western democracies, like say the United Kingdom?  

Much easier for family-sponsored immigration, providing you were not born in mainland China, India or the Philippines, which are all subscribed way beyond quotas. Generally more difficult for self- or employer-sponsored immigration. Basically the norm for investment immigration. The UK is a bad comparison because it basically had to shut down its borders to non-EU immigrants (even spouses, in some cases) because of excessive immigration from Eastern Europe. The UK is also a jus sanguinis, Old World country with a different history of immigration than a jus soli, New World country like the US.

Yeah, HK is a pretty extreme one-off event. I was (ironically) in vancouver last night. It's remarkable to see pictures of Vancouver in the early 90s vs now

[rob in cal]

   I think Bannon and Miller would like less immigration in general, but that the proportion of those immigrants who do still come are higher skilled, so basically cut down on family based immigration and the visa lottery.  Sen Cotton's and Perdues current proposal does that.

[Beet]

Immigration reform without a path to citizenship which instead reduces legal immigration was not something featured prominently in Trump's campaign enough for there to have been considered any sort of mandate for it. It certainly wasn't featured anywhere near enough to be a first legislative priority.

Further, it undercuts arguments against illegal immigrants, that rely on the notion that "legal immigrants waited in long lines, so they are deserving." This would make those lines even longer.

It would also put the U.S. out of step of countries like the U.K., which have about the same percentage of foreign born residents as the U.S., despite the U.S. being a country of immigrants, unlike the U.K. In Australia, 28% of the population is foreign born, 20% in Canada, versus only 13% in the U.S. The only groups it supports are wealthy corporations who want skilled labor, and Bannon/Miller types who don't want the wrong types of people in the country, regardless of any other factors.

[rob in cal]

   In his Phoenix speech on the day he met with Nieto, Trump spoke about returning the US to historic levels of immigration, which could be interpreted in different ways, depending on what times in US history, but from the context of the speech it implied less was a good thing.  Of course during the campaign the centerpiece of his immigration plank was the wall.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Donald has been baiting and switching the US media for over 12 months now.

It is his preferred tactic to get the media off his tail.

[Bojack Horseman]

There shouldn't be a single Democratic vote for a bill like that. Pathway to citizenship or nothing. Frankly, we should just wait until we have a Democratic president to do anything of this magnitude.

[Frodo]

There shouldn't be a single Democratic vote for a bill like that. Pathway to citizenship or nothing. Frankly, we should just wait until we have a Democratic president to do anything of this magnitude.

Following the Republican obstructionist playbook they pioneered (along with the same breathtaking chutzpah), we should demand concession after concession, and then vote against the final bill anyway, forcing Trump to pass it on Republican votes alone, and then accuse him and them of excessive partisanship.  

Same should apply to any and all bills they attempt to pass.    

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I love how the media keeps presuming/insisting/demanding that there is only one compromise immigration proposal. The same 2006/2007/2013 trash.

The minute the word compromise is mentioned, they go to that same bill basically written by three Senators, two of whom are now deceased (Arlen Specter and Ted Kennedy). Even Fox News did this with Charles Krauthammer referring to it as a gold standard (using different terminology about an alien coming from mars to design a perfect plan).

In the old days, compromise meant you sit down with Trump, Cotton and whoever else on the one side, and some Democrats on the other side. And you hammer out a deal between the two sides. A good part of the reason why compromise doesn't work anymore, is because for so long, it became basically whatever some open-borders Republican wrote with Ted Kennedy, then was shoved down your throat by the establishment. And that is a good reason it failed, because it contained the same old wink and nod of security in exchange legalization, meanwhile the illegal poker game in the back room no one talks about is the massive increases in legal immigration. And in most cases, the things that ended up killing those bills was the rebellion by working class independents and even some Democrats (in 2007) against that arrangement.

A compromise is a deal between the "current players" on "BOTH" sides of a giving issue. A deal between Trump and the Democrats would be an actual compromise on immigration. And that may look something like a wall+legal status+reductions in legal immigration.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There shouldn't be a single Democratic vote for a bill like that. Pathway to citizenship or nothing. Frankly, we should just wait until we have a Democratic president to do anything of this magnitude.

Following the Republican obstructionist playbook they pioneered (along with the same breathtaking chutzpah), we should demand concession after concession, and then vote against the final bill anyway, forcing Trump to pass it on Republican votes alone, and then accuse him and them of excessive partisanship.  

Same should apply to any and all bills they attempt to pass.    

The filibuster for legislation will always be a thing. If there are no Democratic votes, then nothing gets passed.

[Frodo]

There shouldn't be a single Democratic vote for a bill like that. Pathway to citizenship or nothing. Frankly, we should just wait until we have a Democratic president to do anything of this magnitude.

Following the Republican obstructionist playbook they pioneered (along with the same breathtaking chutzpah), we should demand concession after concession, and then vote against the final bill anyway, forcing Trump to pass it on Republican votes alone, and then accuse him and them of excessive partisanship.  

Same should apply to any and all bills they attempt to pass.    

The filibuster for legislation will always be a thing. If there are no Democratic votes, then nothing gets passed.

Are you sure about that?  Bear in mind Mitch McConnell always has the nuclear option.  And I don't doubt that Trump would strongly encourage him to use it, whatever the long term consequences may be.    

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This kind of "compromise" offers the worst of both worlds: It creates a massive underclass of people who can stay in the country indefinitely and compete with entry-level American workers for jobs, but that is totally disenfranchised and politically disempowered.

Irreplaceable "superstars" excepted, people should not be living and working in the United States for years unless they have full political rights. This means being a citizen or progressing toward citizenship.

Assuming that the status ultimately gained would be that of a U.S. national rather than a green card holder, I have no problem with that.  Their kids still get to be U.S. citizens and the only perks they lose out on for having bumped the queue to get in they can't vote or be on juries.  (There aren't many U.S. nationals these days, just people in America Samoa who decline to apply for citizenship, but the status already exists so there'd be no meed for new law to define what their rights would be.)

Why are you comfortable shrugging off voting rights and jury duty as trivialities? How do you think this would affect someone living in a place where most of their neighbors can't help in voting out a corrupt city councilperson, or working in a setting where most of their coworkers can't fully participate in political life?

I don't see them as trivialities, but they came here illegally.  It's irrational for them to expect that they somehow end up with U.S. citizenship at the end of the day.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

There shouldn't be a single Democratic vote for a bill like that. Pathway to citizenship or nothing. Frankly, we should just wait until we have a Democratic president to do anything of this magnitude.

Following the Republican obstructionist playbook they pioneered (along with the same breathtaking chutzpah), we should demand concession after concession, and then vote against the final bill anyway, forcing Trump to pass it on Republican votes alone, and then accuse him and them of excessive partisanship.   

Same should apply to any and all bills they attempt to pass.   

The filibuster for legislation will always be a thing. If there are no Democratic votes, then nothing gets passed.

Are you sure about that?  Bear in mind Mitch McConnell always has the nuclear option.  And I don't doubt that Trump would strongly encourage him to use it, whatever the long term consequences may be.   

I doubt there are 50 republican senators that are stupid enough to do something that would, a few short years later, give the democrats unilateral power to abolish the hyde amendment, ban assault weapons, raise income taxes to 50% on the wealthy, etc. Cabinet nominees are only in power a few years, judges have to receive actual cases and can drop dead at any random moment, but laws always enact immediate, lasting change, that quickly garners a devoted base of supporters that make any repeal difficult. Thus repealing the filibuster for legislation is honestly nonsensical - it's getting a border wall (MAYBE) while losing on literally everything else. Republicans aren't THAT dumb.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't see them as trivialities, but they came here illegally.  It's irrational for them to expect that they somehow end up with U.S. citizenship at the end of the day.

Well, if you lack the imagination to think of any other sanction, incentive, or compromise then of course it would seem irrational.

I can think of other sanctions, but they'd be even more draconian.  Simply granting amnesty as if they they were a legal immigrant as of the date amnesty is granted is not an viable option.  For that matter unless we do something to make illegal immigration less attractive in the future (and no I don't mean building that useless wall) there's little point in doing any sort of amnesty.  Personally, I favor making E-verify a requirement for all employers nationwide and considerably upping the penalties for failing to do so.

[Hollywood]

I knew it. The man who is setting up an agency to publish a list of crimes by immigrants is not going to support a path to legal status, even if it does prevent these people from voting.

I disagree.  An intelligent person always takes a strong bargaining position to start a negotiation.  I don't think Americans are against a path to legalization.  In fact, I think Republicans would support a path to legalization, as evidenced by Reagan.  There needs to be some sort of mechanism to prevent the mass illegal immigration to the United States that was promised in the 80s.  

Trump is correct about the open borders.  The crime that has flooded here from Mexico and other Central America countries is absurd.  Take an hour or two to investigate the situation.  Do you really think that illegal immigrants commit less crimes than citizens?  Bull****.  Watch an episode of Gangland.  The most violent gangs in America are comprised of illegal immigrants.  

Today, a Democrat claimed that 5% of crime in this country is committed by illegal immigrants. Wrong.  5% of incarcerations in federal and state prisons equates to illegal immigrants.  This stat is nonsense, because many states do not accurately categorize inmates as legal or illegal citizens.  However, the Federal Government finds that 22% of inmates are illegal immigrants.  Why?  Because the Federal Government deals with the accurate determination of legal status.  

[Beet]

I knew it. The man who is setting up an agency to publish a list of crimes by immigrants is not going to support a path to legal status, even if it does prevent these people from voting.

I disagree.  An intelligent person always takes a strong bargaining position to start a negotiation.  I don't think Americans are against a path to legalization.  In fact, I think Republicans would support a path to legalization, as evidenced by Reagan.  There needs to be some sort of mechanism to prevent the mass illegal immigration to the United States that was promised in the 80s.  

Trump is correct about the open borders.  The crime that has flooded here from Mexico and other Central America countries is absurd.  Take an hour or two to investigate the situation.  Do you really think that illegal immigrants commit less crimes than citizens?  Bull****.  Watch an episode of Gangland.  The most violent gangs in America are comprised of illegal immigrants.  

Today, a Democrat claimed that 5% of crime in this country is committed by illegal immigrants. Wrong.  5% of incarcerations in federal and state prisons equates to illegal immigrants.  This stat is nonsense, because many states do not accurately categorize inmates as legal or illegal citizens.  However, the Federal Government finds that 22% of inmates are illegal immigrants.  Why?  Because the Federal Government deals with the accurate determination of legal status.  

If this is just a bargaining position to negotiate towards a path to legal status, then of course I take back what I said. I still await any evidence that it is, though.

[Hollywood]

I don't see them as trivialities, but they came here illegally.  It's irrational for them to expect that they somehow end up with U.S. citizenship at the end of the day.

Well, if you lack the imagination to think of any other sanction, incentive, or compromise then of course it would seem irrational.

I can think of other sanctions, but they'd be even more draconian.  Simply granting amnesty as if they they were a legal immigrant as of the date amnesty is granted is not an viable option.  For that matter unless we do something to make illegal immigration less attractive in the future (and no I don't mean building that useless wall) there's little point in doing any sort of amnesty.  Personally, I favor making E-verify a requirement for all employers nationwide and considerably upping the penalties for failing to do so.

Fine business owners $10,000 for every illegal immigrant they hire.  That'll put a stop to it.  Illegal Immigration and amnesty is a policy that is supported by corporations and small businesses that directly benefit from illegal labor.  It has been demonstrated to harm the American work and businesses that play by the rules.  Make it completely impossible for such arrangements to being and proceed.  Kill it from the economic root.

[rob in cal]

  Just a few years back there was a small core of Dem senators who were for less immigration, not too big on amnesty etc, such as Dorgan, Byrd, Nelson (of Nebraska) and even Harry Reid in his 90's version.  Now, I wonder if only Manchin would fit that description.   

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

  Just a few years back there was a small core of Dem senators who were for less immigration, not too big on amnesty etc, such as Dorgan, Byrd, Nelson (of Nebraska) and even Harry Reid in his 90's version.  Now, I wonder if only Manchin would fit that description.   

Baucus, Bayh, Bingaman, Brown, Byrd, Dorgan, Harkin, Landrieu, McCaskil, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Sanders, Stabenow, Tester, and Webb all Democrats who voted against the 2007 immigration bill.

In 2013, Baucus, Brown, Harkin, Landrieu, McCaskil, Pryor, Rockefeller, Sanders, Stabenow and Tester, all voted in favor of the Gang of Eight bill. The others had left the Senate. Manchin also voted in favor, as did Donnelly and Heitkamp.