• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A high "bang for the buck" approach to abating illegal immigration Part II

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This OP is meant to be considered in conjunction with the OP from my first thread on this topic. I created this "Part II" to the earlier OP because I realize that "Part I" leaves unaddressed the matter of the labor shortage US employers face.

The second part of my suggestions for legislation to mitigate that dilemma is:
  1. Increase legal immigration quotas -- approved green card applications and various work visa approvals -- so that migrants seeking work can and do come to the US, do the work our citizens/permanent residents (CPRs) won't do, get paid, and return home when their term of lawful employment ends. This law should:
    • Require employers to dismiss immigrants if a qualified CPR who will accept the job makes him-/herself known to the employer seeking the job an immigrant currently holds. If the CPR fails to perform adequately in the first two weeks of employment, the employer can fire the citizen and rehire the immigrant. The immigrant can, during those two weeks, seek alternative employment, but not finding it, s/he must leave the US.
    • Stipulate that immigrants be given two-part "right to work" authorization and both parts must be presented upon applying for/reporting to a job. The employer keeps one part and the worker keeps the other. When the immigrant's period of employment ends, the employer returns the employer part to the immigrant. The returned part will indicate the start and end date of immigrant's employment. The worker's part will also indicate those dates, the start date being noted and signed, upon the start of the worker's employment, by the employer.
    • Require migrant workers to log onto a federal government website and register themselves by TIN number, indicating the name and address of their employer, the start and expected end date of their current calendar year's employment there, a contact phone number, a place of residence.
    • Provide for would-be migrant workers to obtain a TIN number at a US embassy or consulate in their home country. Upon their being accepted for employment, the TIN number and the above noted "right to work" documents would be mailed/emailed/faxed to their employer. In CPB/ICE records migrants' TIN and passport number should be linked.
    • Provide for the government managing (or outsourcing while maintaining government oversight) a "brokerage" service or jobs website of sorts that helps employers find immigrants and would-be migrants find employers seeking workers. The site would be accessible to foreigners and to citizens. The site should be tailored to the needs and hiring characteristics typical of the types of employers noted at the New American Economy webpage I referenced above. (It need not be exclusive to those types of jobs, but they should be the primary focus of it, the content it contains and the content it solicits from employers and job seekers.)
  2. As of the date of the noted provisions' effectivity, no adverse action (on account of their immigration status) would be taken against undocumented migrants physically present in the US, employed and in possession of the above noted "right to work" authorization. Similarly, no adverse action would be taken against employers. Additionally, undocumented workers, should they apply for green cards, will, on account of their work history, be neither given nor denied preferences or priorities in obtaining permanent residency and/or citizenship.
  3. After the effectivity date of the above noted provisions, undocumented workers found in the US, and their employers, hirers, etc. (as noted above), would be subject to existing deportation/incarceration, civil and other penalties as noted in current law and the provisions above.

"The above provisions allow employers to legally employ the folks whom they've been hiring, and they give individual US citizen/permanent residents hiring/employment primacy over non-citizens/non-permanent residents. Moreover, that primacy is actionable on the part of any individual citizen who wants a given job. Thus no citizen/permanent resident need be concerned that an immigrant has a job the citizen/permanent resident is willing and able to perform.


Note:
Criticism of others is thus an oblique form of self-commendation. We think we make the picture hang straight on our wall by telling our neighbors that all his pictures are crooked.”
-- Fulton J. Sheen, Seven Words of Jesus and Mary: Lessons from Cana and Calvary


This thread is intended for members who are interested in solutioneering discussions. That means, if you're going to identify a material flaw in the proposal (Part I or II), you will also have thought about it enough to offer an implementable solution(s) for whatever it is you think is amiss.

He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help.​
-- Abraham Lincoln​
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
37,052
Reaction score
15,171
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sounds great. Might make the period longer than two weeks when bumped by a citizen. That's not very long.

They might need to move, for instance.

And I think ones participation in the program, working paying taxes, obeying the law, etc should count in ones consideration for citizenship. "Try outs" for new citizens. Not sure if that conflicts with the part about not giving preference. If its easier to come here to work under your plans, wouldn't that be a winnowing process?

I'm not sure of your reasoning on this point.

But that's just details.

You know. If elections were publicly funded, I bet we'd already have solutions to a lot of our problems. As it is, most of our legistlators spend most of their time begging for money and working for those who give it to them.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sounds great. Might make the period longer than two weeks when bumped by a citizen. That's not very long.

They might need to move, for instance.


And I think ones participation in the program, working paying taxes, obeying the law, etc should count in ones consideration for citizenship. "Try outs" for new citizens. Not sure if that conflicts with the part about not giving preference. If its easier to come here to work under your plans, wouldn't that be a winnowing process?

I'm not sure of your reasoning on this point.

But that's just details.

You know. If elections were publicly funded, I bet we'd already have solutions to a lot of our problems. As it is, most of our legistlators spend most of their time begging for money and working for those who give it to them.

Thank you.

Blue:
Maybe. I'd nonetheless start by legislating two weeks and see whether that period is too long or too short and allow it to, after two years, be amended administratively rather than legislatively, the law stipulating, however, that the minimum period be one week.


Red:
  • Yes, it does run counter to the "no preference" constraint my proposal contains.
  • I understand why you (others?) might want to have it be that way, and maybe it should.
  • My thinking is this:
    • The goal of the "no preference clause" is to modify existing policy so as to close a gap in it by creating a win-win "playing field" for employers, permanent residents, citizens and migrants.
    • There are various bases by which one can apply for permanent residency, and one of them is by way of employment. I don't desire that the provisions above alter the extant employment prioritization model.
    • I wouldn't have wealthy foreigners using the provisions I've proposed to hasten or improve their chances of obtaining permanent residency, beyond the advantages they already have by dint of being wealthy to begin with.


Pink/Off-Topic:
Public funding of federal elections would abate a host of inefficient and inequitable behaviors extant in our electoral and policy making processes. That said, that's really beyond the scope of this thread.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
37,052
Reaction score
15,171
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Thank you.

Blue:
Maybe. I'd nonetheless start by legislating two weeks and see whether that period is too long or too short and allow it to, after two years, be amended administratively rather than legislatively, the law stipulating, however, that the minimum period be one week.


Red:
  • Yes, it does run counter to the "no preference" constraint my proposal contains.
  • I understand why you (others?) might want to have it be that way, and maybe it should.
  • My thinking is this:
    • The goal of the "no preference clause" is to modify existing policy so as to close a gap in it by creating a win-win "playing field" for employers, permanent residents, citizens and migrants.
    • There are various bases by which one can apply for permanent residency, and one of them is by way of employment. I don't desire that the provisions above alter the extant employment prioritization model.
    • I wouldn't have wealthy foreigners using the provisions I've proposed to hasten or improve their chances of obtaining permanent residency, beyond the advantages they already have by dint of being wealthy to begin with.


Pink/Off-Topic:
Public funding of federal elections would abate a host of inefficient and inequitable behaviors extant in our electoral and policy making processes. That said, that's really beyond the scope of this thread.

Perhaps a two tier system. I have read that many illegals who work seasonally would prefer to go home in the off season.

So maybe a "no citizenship ever" type temporary worker visa and a second type that IS an "audition"?

I understand prioritizing skilled labor. But simply put, a lot of illegals do work Americans won't do for what it pays, even if it was minimum wage. Picking vegetables sucks. So some unskilled, "just labor" types are needed.

Are you thinking we'd get too many unskilled-never-going-to-be-skilled types? I'm still not sure what you are concerned about.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Perhaps a two tier system. I have read that many illegals who work seasonally would prefer to go home in the off season.

So maybe a "no citizenship ever" type temporary worker visa and a second type that IS an "audition"?

I understand prioritizing skilled labor. But simply put, a lot of illegals do work Americans won't do for what it pays, even if it was minimum wage. Picking vegetables sucks. So some unskilled, "just labor" types are needed.

Are you thinking we'd get too many unskilled-never-going-to-be-skilled types? I'm still not sure what you are concerned about.

Red:
I realize that there appears to be work that Americans won't do. I have a problem with there being Americans of that mind; however, acknowledging that there is work that needs doing, if Americans won't do it, I'd yet see someone do it before I see business owners not thrive because nobody's doing it.


Blue:
No.


Pink:
What about my explication of what I had in mind do you not understand?
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
37,052
Reaction score
15,171
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Red:
I realize that there appears to be work that Americans won't do. I have a problem with there being Americans of that mind; however, acknowledging that there is work that needs doing, if Americans won't do it, I'd yet see someone do it before I see business owners not thrive because nobody's doing it.


Blue:
No.


Pink:
What about my explication of what I had in mind do you not understand?

Its a miscommunication.

Lets try this.

It seems to me that you oppose any "credit" for immigrant workers who come here and do well. Obey the rules, work hard, even help out in their communities.

I read the primacy of skills link. I tend to agree. You I think will take the next part as meant.

I have concerns about those at the lower end of the intellect scale. A lot of the lower half. The world's economy is leaving them behind. Many simply weren't born with the chops to get a "good" job. Will never design software or logos or ad campaigns or anything not soon to fall to machines. It worries me. I feel for them. What does our future hold for them? Good, hardworking, dependable people who aren't profitable to employ.

And that carries over to the immigrants.

So that part of what you outline concerns me, but the rest seems fair and reasonable so I am positing that this part is as well, but I don't "Grok" your position yet.

And I'm sure Americans would do the work, just not for peanuts. My fathers family were migrant farm workers and sharecroppers. Its hard grinding work. The kind that breaks you down. You won't learn much to help you improve your lot doing it, beyond a work ethic and a will to do anything else. But if it paid OK people would do it. But that would drive food prices way up.

This whole issue is studded with double edged swords.

When I hear conservatives screaming to get rid of all the illegals tomorrow, I can't believe they've considered ANY of the ramifications.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Its a miscommunication.

Lets try this.

It seems to me that you oppose any "credit" for immigrant workers who come here and do well. Obey the rules, work hard, even help out in their communities.

I read the primacy of skills link. I tend to agree. You I think will take the next part as meant.

I have concerns about those at the lower end of the intellect scale. A lot of the lower half. The world's economy is leaving them behind. Many simply weren't born with the chops to get a "good" job. Will never design software or logos or ad campaigns or anything not soon to fall to machines. It worries me. I feel for them. What does our future hold for them? Good, hardworking, dependable people who aren't profitable to employ.

And that carries over to the immigrants.


So that part of what you outline concerns me
, but the rest seems fair and reasonable so I am positing that this part is as well, but I don't "Grok" your position yet.

And I'm sure Americans would do the work, just not for peanuts. My fathers family were migrant farm workers and sharecroppers. Its hard grinding work. The kind that breaks you down. You won't learn much to help you improve your lot doing it, beyond a work ethic and a will to do anything else. But if it paid OK people would do it. But that would drive food prices way up.

...
Teal:
That one comes to the US, works to fill roles American citizens and permanent residents refuse to fill, and then one returns to one's own country does not strike me as a reason to give one priority consideration for permanent residency status.


Red:
Elements of US immigration policy is this thread's topic.

The status you've noted (black bold) is somewhat concerning to me regarding American permanent residents and citizens. In the context of US immigration policy, it concerns me not regarding Americans or permanent residents, and especially not re: migrants who must or would return to their own countries.

In a foreign aid context -- which is a matter of foreign policy not immigration policy, which is domestic policy that pertains to foreigners upon their arrival in the US -- such things may concern me, and I may, in that context, be amenable to US largesse designed to ameliorate such individuals' plight(s), but I wouldn't at all support doing aso as a feature of US immigration policy.

To the extent the status you've noted exists among Americans and US permanent residents, policies other than immigration policy need to provide the means for managing/attenuating it.


Blue:
I think you imagine I have motives, perhaps some sort of social engineering ones, other than establishing coherent immigration policy that achieves ends other than those noted in my OPs (Part I and Part II). I don't.
  • I want a well publicised and easily understood immigration policy that:
    • Encourages people to come legally to the US if they have a reason and authorization to do so
    • Encourages people to leave when their reason and authorization ceases to exist
    • Ensures Americans and permanent residents aren't denied jobs due to immigrants having them
    • Ensures that employers have access to the labor they need to purchase
    • Makes it, with high certainty of being so, unprofitable for employers to purchase unauthorized labor
That's the, as you put it, position. I wouldn't even call the above listed set of things a "position," for what they are is policy/behavioral outcomes I would see realized.


Pink:
The noted behavior is economically obviously economically irrational. My proposals encourage rational behavior and dissuade, indeed penalize irrational behavior.


Tan:
More folks earning wages would have no consumer-adverse impact on domestic (grocery) food prices. Why?




No matter how much income one earns (in developed nations), one doesn't demand more food; one may, however, demand different foods, say, more beef and less chicken, or more prepared food and fewer commodity groceries. In economies with profound starvation, sure, a huge share of the population (>~25%) suddenly earning wages would increase, food prices because of the material increase in demand.

Further keeping US grocery food prices from changing due to wage increases is TANF, which serves to fix the quantity of food demanded. As you likely observe in your own behavior as well as from the above video groceries are inferior goods; thus even as US prepared food prices may increase, grocery prices won't materially do so; thus the normatively detrimental outcome related to rising food prices -- low income earners can't feed themselves -- fails to come to fruition.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
37,052
Reaction score
15,171
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Teal:
That one comes to the US, works to fill roles American citizens and permanent residents refuse to fill, and then one returns to one's own country does not strike me as a reason to give one priority consideration for permanent residency status.


Red:
Elements of US immigration policy is this thread's topic.

The status you've noted (black bold) is somewhat concerning to me regarding American permanent residents and citizens. In the context of US immigration policy, it concerns me not regarding Americans or permanent residents, and especially not re: migrants who must or would return to their own countries.

In a foreign aid context -- which is a matter of foreign policy not immigration policy, which is domestic policy that pertains to foreigners upon their arrival in the US -- such things may concern me, and I may, in that context, be amenable to US largesse designed to ameliorate such individuals' plight(s), but I wouldn't at all support doing aso as a feature of US immigration policy.

To the extent the status you've noted exists among Americans and US permanent residents, policies other than immigration policy need to provide the means for managing/attenuating it.


Blue:
I think you imagine I have motives, perhaps some sort of social engineering ones, other than establishing coherent immigration policy that achieves ends other than those noted in my OPs (Part I and Part II). I don't.
  • I want a well publicised and easily understood immigration policy that:
    • Encourages people to come legally to the US if they have a reason and authorization to do so
    • Encourages people to leave when their reason and authorization ceases to exist
    • Ensures Americans and permanent residents aren't denied jobs due to immigrants having them
    • Ensures that employers have access to the labor they need to purchase
    • Makes it, with high certainty of being so, unprofitable for employers to purchase unauthorized labor
That's the, as you put it, position. I wouldn't even call the above listed set of things a "position," for what they are is policy/behavioral outcomes I would see realized.


Pink:
The noted behavior is economically obviously economically irrational. My proposals encourage rational behavior and dissuade, indeed penalize irrational behavior.


Tan:
More folks earning wages would have no consumer-adverse impact on domestic (grocery) food prices. Why?




No matter how much income one earns (in developed nations), one doesn't demand more food; one may, however, demand different foods, say, more beef and less chicken, or more prepared food and fewer commodity groceries. In economies with profound starvation, sure, a huge share of the population (>~25%) suddenly earning wages would increase, food prices because of the material increase in demand.

Further keeping US grocery food prices from changing due to wage increases is TANF, which serves to fix the quantity of food demanded. As you likely observe in your own behavior as well as from the above video groceries are inferior goods; thus even as US prepared food prices may increase, grocery prices won't materially do so; thus the normatively detrimental outcome related to rising food prices -- low income earners can't feed themselves -- fails to come to fruition.


OK. You are talking about what I fleeced to as "guest workers". We used to do that, not sure why we stopped.

As I said, a lot of illegals doing seasonal work, which includes construction and landscaping (which aren't really jobs Americans won't do) would prefer to go home in the off season. But they don't for obvious reasons.

So we are in agreement.

Your command of the language is impressive. Its pretty rare for me to need to re-read posts or ask for clarification. But I enjoy it!
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK. You are talking about what I fleeced to as "guest workers". We used to do that, not sure why we stopped.

As I said, a lot of illegals doing seasonal work, which includes construction and landscaping (which aren't really jobs Americans won't do) would prefer to go home in the off season. But they don't for obvious reasons.

So we are in agreement.

Your command of the language is impressive. Its pretty rare for me to need to re-read posts or ask for clarification. But I enjoy it!

Thank you. I'm glad you enjoy considering the ideas I expressed.
 

Xelor

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2018
Messages
10,257
Reaction score
4,161
Location
Washington, D.C.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
....

Your command of the language is impressive. Its pretty rare for me to need to re-read posts or ask for clarification. But I enjoy it!

That's mighty generous of you to say in response to typo-laden post you quoted. I just reread it. I appreciate your being able to "read around" them. Props.
 

What if...?

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
37,052
Reaction score
15,171
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's mighty generous of you to say in response to typo-laden post you quoted. I just reread it. I appreciate your being able to "read around" them. Props.

Mine are much worse.

But I post pretty much exclusively from my phone and auto-correct gets me. Frequently.
 
Top Bottom