Welcome home, fellow Gator.

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

Thousands of Haitians

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Sep 17, 2021.

  1. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,539
    1,194
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Our borders are definitely protected, especially the southern one. We don't have reasonable immigration policies, but we do have the sort of cruel and punitive ones people who oppose immigration favor, and a vast and well funded detention and legal apparatus to support them. These are the results. Obviously, people who arent very thoughtful or curious think cruel and restrictive policies will prevent people from coming or entering the country. But when they inevitably dont, all they do is call for more cruelty and crackdowns (or magic bullets like giant walls), invoking the "crises" their favored policies created.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
  2. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,273
    388
    1,358
    Apr 16, 2007
    Realistically, they were only supposed to be moved temporarily because of the earthquake. No idea if other countries gave them “permanent” status, but the U.S. was temporary.

    I don’t know why they thought they could enter the U.S. now if they had been living in Brazil or other South/Central American countries for 10 years. Some of the people living in the U.S. under special status might have taken steps to apply for permanent status, but it seems unlikely too many in this migrant group would be eligible. They may have even been in these other countries because they were previously denied the U.S.
     
  3. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    Oh --- you must be referencing the cruel and punitive policies that thousands of people living in squalor under a bridge are currently suffering surely not the Afghani's that have been afforded a controlled entrance into the United States.

    I'll make it clear I am not against immigration I am for controlled immigration. Tell me again what's cruel about limits, controls and policies and saying sorry no vacancy? This administration doesn't have a thoughtful response at all and it shows.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  4. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    8,513
    2,653
    1,728
    Oct 30, 2017
    When?
     
  5. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    8,513
    2,653
    1,728
    Oct 30, 2017
    This administration's "response" has been to employ slightly less cruel versions of what Trump did during the last year of his Presidency. So yes, it is "cruel and punitive." And yes, it is not a "thoughtful response." Biden is failing on immigration and border policy. But it isn't because he's too "soft" or "kind."
     
  6. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    So we both agree our immigration policies and this administration are being cruel and punitive on all fronts regarding immigration and arrive at the bigger question of what should be done about it.

    Tell me how this is slightly less cruel.
     
  7. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    23,539
    1,194
    1,968
    Apr 19, 2007
    A Van Down By the River
    Our country doesn't want them either, many of the ones that helped us will be largely abandoned to their fate. If people could walk here from Afghanistan, they'd get the same treatment.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    Agreed some will be abandoned by yet another genius decision by this administration.
     
  9. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,493
    1,007
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    So what would immigration policy look like in your perfect world. Lay out how your optimal command-and-control, central planned immigration system would look from a policy (not outcome) perspective.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  10. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    8,599
    623
    458
    Apr 9, 2007
    Mexico should have never been an impoverished nation. Miles of beautiful coasts on both the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico, not to mention, the Gulf of California. Plenty of precious metals to mine as well, including gold, silver, and copper. Lots of rich farm areas, and with the mountains, climates where it is possible to grow just about what you want. But for generations, Mexico was home to an incredible amount of corruption. Enough so, that it stymied the growth of a middle class. Either you had money in Mexico, or, you were poor, and considered walking north to eek out a living.

    Things began to change in the 1990s. And with the election of Vicente Fox in 2000, it ended 70 years of PRI party rule. NAFTA, which was passed in 1994, played a big role, as already mentioned. The US and Canada increased trade significantly with Mexico, and the result was the creation of a Mexican middle class that quickly had enough power to oust the PRI party. This is the reason the number of Mexicans heading north dropped so drastically.

    It would be great if we could do this with all countries. But that's not reality. We can only encourage, but change has to come from within. It's doubtful a NAFTA style agreement back in the 1960s would have altered history that much. But in the 1990s, the timing was right and ripe for change in Mexico. Haiti, on the other hand? Completely different story.
     
  11. gator_lawyer

    gator_lawyer Premium Member

    8,513
    2,653
    1,728
    Oct 30, 2017
    They've made exceptions to Title 42, they were attempting to end some of the worst programs (e.g., Remain in Mexico) and change enforcement priorities, and they aren't intentionally separating families. But "slightly less cruel" is still way too damn cruel.
     
  12. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    I'd say adopt the same policies Australia has though I know that will never be done and most would consider it draconian. If you enter the country illegally you will never be given the opportunity to immigrate to the US. You need a work VISA apply for one if you extend your stay you will be deported and will not be eligible for immigration status or any other program to enter into the US. You want a student VISA you must provide documentation to validate that you are a student in good standing or you will be deported. Higher education schools will be required to provide a list of all non-citizens enrolled on a semester basis to checked against all student VISAs) When arriving on US shores you must have a bank account with a minimum deposit to support yourself for at minimum for 6 months. If you can a pay a coyote you can certainly put money in an account and bypass the illicit process all together. That's a start. Heck I'd even settle for Canada's immigration policy.

    Immigration and citizenship (Australia)
     
  13. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,493
    1,007
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    So basically, you are calling for massive new regulations and a huge government bureaucracy to deal with what problem exactly? That people want to come here? Let me ask you this: why do you want the US to be smaller when our major global adversary's main strength is the size of its population? What exactly is the main strategic advantage for slowing our population growth?
     
  14. AzCatFan

    AzCatFan GC Hall of Fame

    8,599
    623
    458
    Apr 9, 2007
    Australia has the advantage of being an island. Can't walk into the country. Canada has a better model for the US to follow. Their model is basically if you are granted asylum, you get it. If not, if you can find gainful employment, you can stay. And all Canadian businesses, in order to hire immigrants, must present that they tried hiring citizens for the work, but could not meet their employment needs without the help of the immigrants.

    There's more nuance to the Canadian system, but a basic system like this makes sense to me.
     
  15. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    Lets be clear it wasn't an attempt they did it without considering the consequences. In my opinion if you don't want to be cruel about it control the border and put an immigration policy in place that serves the citizens of the US and those that wish to immigrate to the US. Selecting / leaving people where they are currently at isn't cruel in my opinion and to be blunt the only reason people are doing this now is because they know the US lacks the resources and the will power to refuse them.
     
  16. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    As if the one we currently have isn't huge but if that is what it takes to protect our borders and get immigration under control so be it.

    Let's turn the question around. Why do want the US to mirror the population of China? As for adversary's main strength we even that out with technology (good and bad).

    The question of slowing population growth should be directed at determining why Americans aren't having more children. Out of curiosity how many do you have? I have four and four grandchildren at this point in my life. Is it your intent to take the world's population to support your life style?

    Slowing and controlling immigration should ensure immigrants denounce allegiance to any other nation, become proficient in English and assimilate into American culture (beliefs. laws, government Local / State / Federal). To do otherwise is not American.
     
  17. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,493
    1,007
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    So how many tens of billions more are you willing to spend to reach a goal that, frankly, has no end point (every country has "illegal immigrants")?

    Why do we have that technology? I'd argue the economic system combined with a large population. BTW, how much of that technology is directly attributable to immigrants? How much to the direct descendants of fairly recent immigrants?

    Why should I care if the population grows because somebody in Ohio chose to have a kid versus somebody immigrated? Is the native born option fundamentally better? And I have one child.

    Interestingly, that is not at all how immigration has worked for the entire run of America as a country. Prior to the 1920s, outside of a few purely racist restrictions (i.e., the Chinese Exclusion Act), immigration was basically uncontrolled. Show up, write down your name, a couple of basic medical tests, a check to make sure you could pay a month's rent, and off you went. Many first generation immigrants didn't learn English. Quite a few migrated back and forth. So what America are you discussing, because it isn't the America of the real world.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    I agree it makes sense to me as well right up to the point where you must open a bank account with a stated balance to support yourself for a designated period of time.

    Regardless of Australia being an island they take immigration much more seriously than most nations on the planet which is why I stated most would see Australia's immigration policies as being draconian.
     
  19. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Legend

    978
    153
    303
    Dec 31, 2016
    Technology was introduced to America by the very first of the settlers that came ashore. As for technology it knows no bounds, no ethnic group or nation for that matter. Once you are American any technological advancement that is made is American. It's not Italian, Chinese or otherwise.

    Obviously you care about the population since your argument was to grow it. So what's the limit? Is it the population of China you seek? As for native born there are no misconceptions about American culture at birth. These children experience American culture from the get go. In that sense it is a plus.

    We don't live in the 1920's and references to what happened in the past are irrelevant. Case in point Australia was seeded with prisoners and misfits. Using such logic you would think Australia wouldn't care about immigrants at all.
     
  20. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,493
    1,007
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    I mean, if you want to get this obtuse, those first settlers certainly weren't European. And, again assuming this level of obtuseness, then we should let any immigrants into the country because once they are here, they are just American. So we have solved the issue, right?

    You think babies have a deep understanding of "American culture?" Heck, being born here makes something less of a choice than choosing to come here. I would think you would want people who chose to come here, not people who just so happened to be here based on pure happenstance.

    You described something as "American." It is fair to point out that at no point in American history has your ideal existed. So it isn't accurately described as "American" at any particular point in time.

    BTW, for much of their history Australia had a Whites Only immigration policy. So historically, they have been far more restrictive on their immigration. Of course, I have no idea what this has to do with anything, but none of these points seem to have much of a logical point. I have no idea why the fact that the original Australians from Europe (there were people already in Australia) were criminals means that they shouldn't care about immigrants at all.