Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest [pdf]
dhs.gov
dhs.gov
So how about updating those laws? For example, an H1B who is fired has to leave the country by next day. This has always been ridiculous because: impossible. It wasn't enforced, so people could get new jobs or prepare properly for leaving.
I also hear from people who have gone through the green card process as adults that it is actually not possible to go through that process while remaining legal.
The craziness that is US immigration law (and pretty much anything having to do with damn foreigners) was only kept at bay by discretion, which is now removed.
Did I already say "Oh my god"?
I find it crazy that in US you can have 95-page law-like document (in a tiny-font!) produced by executive branch. [1] Especially if a different administration can easily cancel it.
Why doesn't Congress produce these instead?
Related: 380-page "Stream Protection Rule". [2] Canceled? [3]
I wonder how many pages are in the whole corpus of laws and executive rules currently in effect in the US.
[1]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27540.p...
[2]: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-20/pdf/2016-29958.p...
[3]: https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hjres38/BILLS-115hjres38e...
"all existing conflicting directives, memoranda, or field guidance regarding the enforcement of our immigration laws and priorities for removal are hereby immediately rescinded"
To me, what you referred to is exactly one of those "conflicting directives" that has now been rescinded, but I most certainly could be completely wrong about that.
I think that statement must have limited scope because this six page memo could hardly replace the entire rulebook.
How so?
Well...
About the only major screwup here for effective mass deportations is the Trump administration is hiring too few people to round up these people. Back in the 1940s when we were rounding up Japanese to send to concentration camps, it took way more manpower to effectively round up that population to send them to squalid, disease filled camps we sent them to, and there weren't 6 million to be rounded up either.
Hopefully this will get more Americans politically active at the very least, as when the food is rotting in the fields due to a lack of farm hands, that is when we will see something similar to what is happening with Obamacare and Republican voters right now.
FWIW, many of us became politically active for the first time in our lives specifically because of the candidacy of DJT and the promises he made to deal with this issue.
A couple questions for HN, that I've yet to see answered without appeal to emotion:
1. By what moral principle do noncitizens have the right to reside in a sovereign country?
2. What is so morally outrageous about a sovereign country choosing to reduce its non-citizen : citizen ratio?
Rape, torture, murder, all justifiable in the hands of your government at some point in the name of expediency, with no remorse or reparations provided.
2. All you need to do is watch the implementation carefully. You'll find reasons for outrage soon enough.
But I'm genuinely interested in answers to my questions devoid of appeal to emotion, not deflection to other questions.
An illegal immigrant from a poor country sells everything, and by a stroke of luck is successful in coming to the US. Then they spend some time there (say 15 years).
Surely they have more to lose than a legal qualified immigrant (now a citizen) that spent some 8 years jumping through the hoops? The qualified immigrant could just pick a country at random and have reasonable chance of starting over, while the minimum wage illegal can't do the same (and so has to hope the country doesn't crap itself).
>protection of shared cultural heritage
How much cultural heritage does a white protestant factory worker share with an illegal Chinese immigrant?
Is it more or less than they share with legal Chinese programmer who had recently been granted a citizenship?
>You're seeing it play out in Germany, Sweden and other places where mass migrations has disrupted cultures and created pockets of lawlessness because the people have no affinity for their new governments.
Next you are going to tell me there are no-go zones in European cities, right?
Not sure on "no-go zones", but did you see some jouralists got assaulted [0] when they went to investigate the crazy claims of violent muslim immigrants in Sweden?
[0] http://www.dailywire.com/news/13664/american-journalist-sava...
I doubt that the "left doesn't respect some laws like immigration". (I doubt that there even exists such a group as "the left" but that's for another discussion)
There are only people who don't come in contact with illegals very often, people who come into contact with them but don't know about their status, and then the people who employ them while knowing their status (and it would make sense to solve the issue there). After all, who would come to the US illegally when no one would give them a job?
>jouralists got assaulted
Yes, I've seen that clip. It still doesn't indicate a wider long-term issue.
Because if not, then you are not a citizen of a sovereign country, you are an European illegal alien, trespassing on land to which you have no legal claim of ownership or occupation, let alone sovereignty.
Come back when you have repatriated yourself to your proper country.
Wait, I'm confused.
I thought there wasn't enough work for everyone, and we needed Basic Income/welfare/etc so that people wouldn't starve. I didn't realize the situation changed, and now we have a shortage of labor and desperately need people to do work or else people will starve.
Now that the situation has reversed, I guess we should end the welfare state and just redirect unemployed/etc people into these agricultural jobs?
Yeah also don't forget the eternal shortage of programmers and engineers.
The ideal result here would probably be to streamline the path to citizenship, make it significantly cheaper, and get these people paying taxes as soon as possible.
I think that's a mistaken assumption. Undocumented immigrants pay far more in taxes than they get back: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocum...
If per chance you meant they are net contributors to the "system" that is unsupported by your citation
Pay money, but don't get the benefits of what that money buys?
I could find articles that indicated that some restaurants planned to close, eg http://www.wpr.org/madison-restaurants-are-closing-day-witho... , but nothing to suggest that even a substantial fraction of restaurants closed.
This article http://www.nbc15.com/home/headlines/Day-Without-Latinos-prot... lists nine restaurants (with multiple locations) that were closed, with no indication that were more.
Up in Canada, they straight up import workers for low end jobs, hence why at Tim Hortons up north, you will rarely if ever see a native Canadian, its nearly entirely Asians, cause they are there on worker visas. The Canadian Govt has decided their workforce should be doing something better than making coffee or baking donuts, which isn't the worst idea when properly implemented.
"I know we pay you peanuts, but at least you get to work hard."
> With the exception of the June 15, 2012, memorandum entitled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children," and the November 20, 2014 memorandum entitled "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children and with Respect to Certain Individuals Who Are the Parents of U.S. Citizens or Permanent Residents," all existing conflicting directives, memoranda, or field guidance regarding the enforcement ofour immigration laws and priorities for removal are hereby immediately rescinded.
That's a fairly large exception.
So, if they accuse you wrongfully, or are just having a bad hair day, you're out.
Having the opportunity for arbitrary abuse of power is a magnet for every nobody longing to be somebody. The Department of Humiliation Services will be home to all sorts of creeps.
So they don't actually have to [wrongfully] accuse you.
This reads like they need to prove the person committed something, so the accusation will be used more often anyway.
> Additionally, regardless of the basis of removability, Department personnel should prioritize removable aliens who: (I) have been convicted of any criminal offense; (2) have been charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved; (3) have committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense; ( 4) have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency; (5) have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (6) are subject to a final order of removal but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (7) in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.
[1] http://stopdeportationsnow.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-immigrati...
Immigrants are self selecting people who want to have a better life. Why the US cannot figure out how to streamline legal immigration has been a failure of the US government for many years. Instead of 10k more officers to implement deportations, a better use of money would have been to use those people to improve/speed up the immigration process.
Being a developer/scientist/entrepreneur whose primary exposure to immigrants is of high-IQ, high-agency, personable people similar to ourselves, it's easy to allow anecdote to obscure the facts.
The facts are that immigrants - both legal and illegal - are far more likely than natives to parasitize the social services of their host country:
http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-illegals... http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-illegals...
The interesting question is not whether poor people use more welfare than rich people but whether poor immigrants are more likely to use more welfare than poor natives. Our research found that poor immigrants are less likely to use welfare than poor natives. The CIS report isn’t very useful because it doesn’t correct for this.
I fully agree that on average, the American underclass is terrible and most immigrants are better people. As evidence of this, witness all the left wing types who seem to believe that the American underclass would rather sit around on welfare than do the work that illegal immigrants will no longer be doing.
But that's not the question we're asking. The question we're asking is whether a new immigrant - a person we have the choice of accepting or rejecting - will be a benefit to society or a parasite upon it? Many natives suck, but we're stuck with them. Does that mean we are forever obligated to import more people who suck only slightly less?
(For the record, I think the best solution is to end the welfare state and open our borders. I'm just arguing with bad reasoning.)
Also if America were actually such a terrible place for the underclass (because racism, etc) wouldn't the rational left-wing response be to try to get the underclass to emigrate somewhere where they might get "fair" treatment?
Maybe nobody read the history of Liberia...
What? Isn't the "welfare queen" a right-wing talking point?
Admittedly, it's only right wingers who bring that talking point up when discussing welfare.
I hate Trump's immigration policies but he repeatedly promised to streamline the immigration process on the campaign trail (and he used that very word, "streamline", every time, as if to drill it in people's heads). When he first brought up "extreme vetting", he also said he wants to make the process much quicker, and doesn't want people waiting years to get a visa.
This fits the "make a bold first offer, then tone it down before the execution" interpretation of Trump that some people find convincing.
I guess his plan is to be harsher in his vetting in some areas (so, turn away a whole population if even 3% of them could be bad apples) to allow him to be much more lenient in other areas.
Everyone promises that. Sometimes, people even present coherent policies (Trump has not) which make that promise concrete. Those concrete policies don't tend to do much (which is the fault of the proposer) to actually streamline the process, or they tend not to get passed (which may be the fault of other legislative actors).
Promising generalities is very far from delivering an actual actionable plan.
The issue is not that the US cannot figure out how to.
The issue is that the US (that is, a sufficient set of those people in positions to make decisions on immigration law) do not want to improve the situation with legal immigration.
"Additionally, regardless of the basis of removability, Department personnel should prioritize removable aliens who: [...] or (7) in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security."
That said, if we're going to have a roundup I hope it targets the biggest illegal alien demographic - middle European males overstaying their school visa. Just to be fair, you know, the white males that are the bulk of the problem should not be overlooked.
http://immigration.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
There are no European countries in the the top 10 countries (comprising 85% of the total) of origin for illegals.
At most, Europeans could make up 15% of illegal immigrants.
Saying that Iowa covers the food problem is a little like saying that we've got transportation covered because there are railroads that move tons of stuff.
Sure lots is used for feedstock and ethanol now; because its available and cheap.
America most certainly doesn't have enough to feed the world. The US has 4.4% of the total population.
I get that these farm workers are technically breaking the law, but they're laws that have been knowingly not enforced for decades.
I honestly think the economic shock of this is going to cause another recession.
The point is that reduction of capital or labor (in this case) does not cause increase in prosperity overall.
It does not add anything to the economy, it just takes away.
Even in recession, if you're getting poorer, it does not make sense to create pressures for general price increases by taking away stuff or people from the economy. It just makes your slide into poverty faster.
At times, you may get actual reduction in some metric (say GDP), at others you may still get an increase in response to some major intervention into economy, because there are other inseparable overriding factors (like being in the middle of some major advance in technology, or business practices - but you can never know, control for that).
You can only reason apriori about economic forces/interactions.