Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

liberals are infighting over migrants

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by buckeyegator, Oct 4, 2022.

  1. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    4,076
    860
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like perhaps you're making an argument here (that socialist governments would never persecute people) that you do not actually believe? Is this an effort to point out what you believe is an inconsistency you think the other side has? Who has argued that socialist/leftist governments would never persecute people? Couldn't you ask the reverse question - that those on the right who suggest that socialist governments are by-and-large (if not inherently) oppressive are being intellectually dishonest here by downplaying allegations of persecution?
     
  2. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    13,541
    1,535
    1,718
    Dec 9, 2010
    The question has a premise. That premise was about "all" so I answered and discussed the question, including premising my question, on the same basis.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 9, 2007
    We have 4X as many Border Patrol agents today as we did in the 1980s. Yet, total border apprehensions today are around the same number! Security at the border is an illusion. It's not possible, unless we are willing to commit thousands of military troops who patrol the entire 2000 miles 24X7.

    As for sanctuary cities, since San Francisco declared itself one in 1979, multiple studies have shown sanctuary cities are safer than non-sanctuary cities of similar size. And it's simple logic. Local LEOs need community help and support to solve local crimes. If a city has a significant immigrant population, local LEOs can solve more crimes if the immigrants are willing to help, and not worried about possibly being deported. Local LEOs have long decided it's better to work with immigrants to get dangerous criminals off the street, as compared to deporting immigrants, whose only crime may be overstaying a visa or entering the country illegally. Again, logical to arrest the felon with the help of the immigrants, versus lose immigrant help, and let the felon go, but possibly arrest the immigrant, who only will be charged with a misdemeanor.

    And yes, you have missed something when it comes to labor. We have been experiencing a post-COVID labor shortage, which has caused some of the inflation. Last year, it was estimated there were a missing 3 million immigrants not in the labor force due to both Trump legal immigration changes, plus Title 42, which kept immigrants in Mexico. Immigration isn't the answer to our labor woes, but it should be part of the solution.

    Going locally, immigration labor shortages still exist all over the country, contributing to inflation. Here's Oregon, Kansas and Missouri, and Georgia. Different states, but same basic story. Immigration can help fill the labor shortage gaps.

    Now, if there's a huge recession coming, that will change the calculus. But last major recession, the total undocumented population dropped about 1.5 million over the course of 2 years. The labor market, if left alone, usually self regulates.

    Last, fundamentally, not much has changed on the border for decades. The Bracero Program bought over over 4 million people legally from the end of WWII through 1964. By 1986, an additional 1 million undocumented immigrants got amnesty, though it could have been much higher had communication been better. And if amnesty had been extended to recent entrants, which it was not. Today, undocumented population is around 11 million. And it's the same story. Impoverished people show up at the border because there are jobs to be had here in the US. Has been the same for decades.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  4. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas Moderator

    2,529
    3,567
    1,998
    Dec 31, 2016
    More border patrol agents. Weren't you just advocating for more processing centers? Who do you think is responsible for those? You also haven't addressed those that simply got away. I note we do have the unfortunate deaths of those that attempt to cross the border but for those that are caught smuggling people across the border there are many that get away with it. That's the money maker in all of this. Those that do get away certainly are not going to turn themselves in.

    The safety of sanctuary cities is irrelevant as it seems as though you are suggesting that their safety is compromised when apprehended by ICE. As for solving crimes the answer is police patrolling areas of high crime rates. If that happens to be where non citizens reside so be it. You don't want the criminals in your neighborhood then let LEO's do their jobs.

    Yes we do have job shortages yet not all of these people are employed. Why is that? Could it be the job skills the market needs are not the job skills they have or the jobs they want to do? I think we could all agree that given our society the US will never compete with a global abundance of cheap labor. Which is what these jobs are and what employers want. As for the States you just mentioned why isn't the Federal government sending them there when they are released?

    Last but not least on the issue of amnesty. If we were to grant everyone amnesty now, tomorrow we have the same problem. This was the issue with amnesty in the first place. The call was give them amnesty then fix the border and immigration. This did not happen. Immigrants got amnesty and the follow up was scrapped. Once bitten twice shy.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2022
  5. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,781
    572
    2,088
    Apr 24, 2007
    I guess you’ve figured out my angle. I would be happy to take your suggestion and ask the reverse question when those that support socialism admit that socialist governments are very oppressive. They do not work as proposed and generally end up with the people getting screwed.

    There is no capitalism in Central and South America. It isn’t a question of whether all of the governments there are socialist. The much simpler question to answer is how many of those countries have clean elections with a capitalist economic system? I remember when the term “Banana Republic” came to be and it was for Central and South America.

    My point is not so much to point out the fallacy to our resident lefties here that the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants to the US are fleeing the same type of government and economic system as democrats want to “fundamentally change” the US to. My bigger point is that any government that has too much power is never good for its citizens. I would be just as miserable here in the US if hard line evangelicals held the presidency, the Senate, and the House as I am with crazy leftists doing the same.

    The true beauty of our constitution is that it LIMITS government from consolidating too much power. Instead of appreciating that, most people (particularly the extremes of both sides) spend their time trying to give government rights that it doesn’t and shouldn’t have, so that they can use it to implement their will.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. AgingGator

    AgingGator GC Hall of Fame

    2,781
    572
    2,088
    Apr 24, 2007
    Ahhh the glorious 80’s. It wasn’t just the music that went to hell.
     
  7. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 9, 2007
    You are missing the point about the border and sanctuary cities. First, for sanctuary cities, being a sanctuary city allows the local LEOs to be more effective in their job. Which is to solve and prevent local crimes. To be most effective in this, local LEOs need the assistance and support of the local community. If the local immigrant community in a city knows the locals won't hassle them in regards to anyone's immigration status, these immigrant residents tend to be more helpful and cooperative with local LEOs. This leads to more arrests and fewer crimes committed in the city as a whole. Sanctuary cities allow the local LEOs to do their job better, which is to protect and serve the local community.

    As for the border, it will never be secure unless we commit to full militarization. That's thousands of troops patrolling around the clock. We have nearly 5X the Border Patrol agents, and even larger increase in budget since the 1980s, and we are still catching about the same number of undocumented crossers as we did back then. Suggesting that a similar number are coming in and not being caught. It should tell you and anyone that this issue cannot be solved by doing what we have been doing.

    With labor shortages, they exist in all 50 states. I just gave you four examples, one from a west coast state, two from the Midwest, and one from the east to show you this problem exists literally from coast to coast. At current, those awaiting asylum hearings are ineligible to work legally until they are here a certain period of time. I believe it's 5 months, but I'm not a lawyer, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong. A law, that either way, needs to be changed.

    About 18,000 of our 20,000 BP agents are stationed on the Southern border. If we left just 10k to patrol the border, and switched the other 8,000 to work in processing centers, we'd have plenty of labor to staff the processing centers without adding a dime to the budget for labor costs. We'd apprehend less people at the border crossing illegally, but then, we'd also reduce the number of illegal people crossing by 90% or more, by allowing them to cross legally at a processing center to seek asylum and/or a guest worker visa.

    At the same time, we'd also raise revenues from these immigrants by collecting on a guest worker visa. Again, $5/week, if we get 8 million to pay, that's $2 billion a year in additional tax revenues, that can be used to pay for the infrastructure needed to keep processing centers up and running, plus additional security at ports of entry, where most of the drugs are coming in.

    A system like this is the only logical answer. It's the answer the 2007 bi-partisan committee and the 2013 bi-partisan Gang of 8 came up with.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas Moderator

    2,529
    3,567
    1,998
    Dec 31, 2016
    Your missing the point. If these people want LEO support then speak up. You do not need to be a sanctuary city to have this happen. Second, all we are doing is enforcing the law and it is apparent these people know they have skirted the law with regards to immigration. That said the only thing sanctuary cities are doing is aiding and abetting the unlawful actions of these people.

    I did not call for militarization of the border. I did say that yes there are those that will still come and get by. Simply giving all of them a pass in not the solution. You know it and I know it. So yes we need stricter border controls. Throwing your arms up in the air and saying we cannot do anything about it is nonsense. Mitigation is what is needed. Give me Canada's immigration laws and I'd be much happier about the situation.

    As I stated earlier not all of these immigrants are employed and you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

    And your answer to reduce border crossings by 90% or more is to process them and let them in. At what point do you say I'm sorry we are not processing any more people? You do realize that solution only opens the flood gates for more to come.
     
  9. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 9, 2007
    The LEOs want support from the community they serve. If that community happens to have an immigrant presence, then it better serves the local LEOs to be a sanctuary city, and not worry about immigration status. And local LEOs aren't aiding and abetting anyone. Local LEOs have zero jurisdiction to enforce immigration law per the Constitution. Local LEOs are charged with solving local crimes, and several studies show LEOs do better when they don't even worry about immigration law. Forcing local LEOs to enforce immigration law would handcuff them from doing their job, which is enforcing local laws.

    If you believe there is a pull to the US for immigration, you are sadly mistaken. Trump did everything he could to try and stop undocumented immigration, and accomplished nothing. The amount of undocumented immigrants in the US follows the economic conditions here in the country, and the economic conditions of countries to our South. During our last recession, the undocumented population in the US shrank. The last 10 years or so, we've seen less Mexicans emigrating into the US, because Mexico's experiencing its best economy in its history. At the same time, we've seen an increase in C. American and S. American immigrants, because countries like El Salvador and Venezuela have been experiencing some of their worst economies in their respective histories.

    I agree we should use a law like Canada, which has no cap on the number of immigrants that come in. Basically, if the employer can prove the need for labor that citizens aren't filling, they are allowed to hire immigrants. Would love to see something like that here.
     
  10. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas Moderator

    2,529
    3,567
    1,998
    Dec 31, 2016
    Your first paragraph just made my argument. If LEO's are not concerned nor tasked with immigration issues what is the point of designating a sanctuary city.

    Whether you want to believe it or not something has to be done as saturation will put more of a strain of public resources. Recent news and mayors asking for federal resources and help should raise concern. In my view your solution doesn't believe this will be an issue.

    You do recognize that Canada requires the job be available prior to entry and they only let those in that are qualified to do the job. Canada also has a requirement that people must have a means to provide for themselves and their families along with valid job offers. IE you better have money in your pocket prior to entry.

    Proof of funds – Skilled immigrants (Express Entry)
    Proof of funds is how you show us that you have enough money to settle in Canada. If we invite you to apply, you must give written proof that you have this money.​
     
  11. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 9, 2007
    Local LEOs used to be concerned about immigration status prior to San Francisco declaring itself a sanctuary in 1979. It was standard practice to ask about immigration status and pass information along to the Feds. Declaring itself a sanctuary removes this task completely from local LEOs, and allows them to be more efficient at doing their jobs.

    Part of our issue versus Canada is the hoops employers have to jump through to get immigrant labor makes it very difficult. And the limit we put on both skilled and unskilled workers are woefully inadequate. It forces employers to look the other way and hire undocumented.

    If we created a system where employers could list the open positions, we could do what Canada does, and match the immigrants with the open positions. That needs be part of the guest worker program. If employers could legally hire immigrants, they would.

    We currently have between 10 and 11 million undocumented in this country. It's estimated that 8 million are in the workforce, and an additional 1 million are students. That's a better labor participation rate than citizens. The other 1 to 2 million not working are likely either elderly, unable to work, or maybe spouses of citizens who can afford not to work, and don't want to risk getting caught.

    But we agree, new immigrants should come in only if there is a job they are willing and able to do. That should be the system. Pay the guest worker visa and remained employed with say no gap longer than 3 months, and you can stay in the country. Do so for an extended period of time while staying out of trouble, then when your visa ends, either return home, or get on citizenship track.

    If we ever run into a time period where there aren't jobs for these immigrants to take, then we won't let them in. But last time that happened (last recession), many immigrants returned home voluntarily. The market is already efficient. We just need to legally allow supply to meet demand, and it would become even more efficient.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  12. VAg8r1

    VAg8r1 GC Hall of Fame

    17,521
    1,220
    1,513
    Apr 8, 2007
    500? As of early August Abbot had relocated over 4,000 asylum seekers (who by the way have a legal right to remain in the US pending adjudication of the asylum claims) to NYC.
    Seeking Asylum in Texas; Sent to New York to Make a Political Point