Should immigrants have a path to citizenship?

[Gatsby]

I think I follow your reasoning with the exception of the bachelor's degree. Where does that come from, and what do you think it signifies?

Having more smart and motivated people in America, rather than deporting them, is good. And secondarily, it encourages illegal immigrants who don't otherwise qualify to get a bachelor's degree, which would make them more educated.

 

[MamboDervish]

Having more smart and motivated people in America, rather than deporting them, is good.

Unless the people you're interested in keeping are field worker, landscapers, kitchen help and chamber maids.

And secondarily, it encourages illegal immigrants who don't otherwise qualify to get a bachelor's degree, which would make them more educated.

Which also makes them more likely to compete with the native population.

?? What am I missing here?

 

[Lord of Planar]

If we're talking about immigrants writ large: It depends.
If we're talking specifically about *illegal* immigrants: It still depends.

Plenty of visas are only for a few years, and that's fine. I think having some temporary worker programs are good...they don't necessarily all need a path to citizenship. The big problem is when meritocratic entries (e.g. student visas and H1B visas) don't have any path to citizenship. We should fix that by letting them get green cards when their temporary visa expires.

As for illegal immigrants...generally I'd say that amnesty for some of them is a better goal than a path to citizenship. Amnesty which lets them continue to live and work here, and which can be revoked if they break the law. But for the ones who get amnesty, it should come with the ability to apply for green cards for which they are qualified, such as being married to a US citizen. So it wouldn't reward them with a path to citizenship just for being an illegal immigrant, but it would grant them the same paths to citizenship open to applicants who aren't illegal immigrants.

I would support amnesty for illegal immigrants who can pass a background check and who have been here since, say, 2022, if they meet any one of the following criteria:

• They are married to a US citizen.
• They are the parent of an over-21 US citizen.
• They have a bachelor's degree.
• They served honorably in the US military.
• They can prove they entered the US before they were 18.
• They can prove they have lived in the US for 10+ years.

Amnesty is a trick proposal. President Regan had an agreement with the democrats to shut off illegal immigration and to pass amnesty, and they failed to do that. Why should any amnesty be offered until the border is secure? Secure the border first,m and i will be an active proponent of amnesty.

I say it is tricky, because just speaking about it and publicly supporting it would bring in a flood of illegal immigrants to beat any given deadline.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Having more smart and motivated people in America, rather than deporting them, is good. And secondarily, it encourages illegal immigrants who don't otherwise qualify to get a bachelor's degree, which would make them more educated.

We have a legal system that does just that.

 

[Gatsby]

Unless the people you're interested in keeping are field worker, landscapers, kitchen help and chamber maids.

I offered five other options in addition to the bachelor's degree.

Which also makes them more likely to compete with the native population.

?? What am I missing here?

Lump of labour fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Immigrants - especially educated immigrants - do not "compete" with the native population in the sense of driving wages down. They are also consumers, which push wages back up. For educated immigrants especially, they are net job creators and raise the wages of the native-born population. (The picture is a little less clear for less-educated immigrants, but it's also not obvious that they drive wages down.)

 

[MamboDervish]

I offered five other options in addition to the bachelor's degree.

And I'm down with all of them. They make sense to me.

Lump of labour fallacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Immigrants - especially educated immigrants - do not "compete" with the native population in the sense of driving wages down. They are also consumers, which push wages back up. For educated immigrants especially, they are net job creators and raise the wages of the native-born population. (The picture is a little less clear for less-educated immigrants, but it's also not obvious that they drive wages down.)

Meh ....

 

[Gatsby]

Amnesty is a trick proposal. President Regan had an agreement with the democrats to shut off illegal immigration and to pass amnesty, and they failed to do that. Why should any amnesty be offered until the border is secure? Secure the border first,m and i will be an active proponent of amnesty.

I agree, I'm not opposed to offering amnesty for some (or even most) of the illegal immigrants already here. But we need to secure the border so that we don't need to do it again in 30 years. And even more importantly, we need to fix the asylum loopholes in our immigration law that allow people to just show up at the border and get quasi-legal status almost immediately.

I say it is tricky, because just speaking about it and publicly supporting it would bring in a flood of illegal immigrants to beat any given deadline.

That's why I support setting a deadline in the past. And it should be worded not as "You must have lived here for three years," but rather "You must have lived here since December 31, 2022" so there is a hard-and-fast cutoff no matter how much time passes before they apply for amnesty.

 

[Sabre]

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

I guess we aren't that country anymore. That's a real shame.

That is a poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883. The intent was to help raise funds for construction of the pedestal, not a how to or a rule to follow, simply a poem.

 

[MamboDervish]

I agree, I'm not opposed to offering amnesty for some (or even most) of the illegal immigrants already here. But we need to secure the border so that we don't need to do it again in 30 years. And even more importantly, we need to fix the asylum loopholes in our immigration law that allow people to just show up at the border and get quasi-legal status almost immediately.

But what if they deserve asylum? How is that a "loophole" ?

That's why I support setting a deadline in the past. And it should be worded not as "You must have lived here for three years," but rather "You must have lived here since December 31, 2022" so there is a hard-and-fast cutoff no matter how much time passes before they apply for amnesty.

 

[weaver2]

If we're talking about immigrants writ large: It depends.
If we're talking specifically about *illegal* immigrants: It still depends.

Plenty of visas are only for a few years, and that's fine. I think having some temporary worker programs are good...they don't necessarily all need a path to citizenship. The big problem is when meritocratic entries (e.g. student visas and H1B visas) don't have any path to citizenship. We should fix that by letting them get green cards when their temporary visa expires.

As for illegal immigrants...generally I'd say that amnesty for some of them is a better goal than a path to citizenship. Amnesty which lets them continue to live and work here, and which can be revoked if they break the law. But for the ones who get amnesty, it should come with the ability to apply for green cards for which they are qualified, such as being married to a US citizen. So it wouldn't reward them with a path to citizenship just for being an illegal immigrant, but it would grant them the same paths to citizenship open to applicants who aren't illegal immigrants.

I would support amnesty for illegal immigrants who can pass a background check and who have been here since, say, 2022, if they meet any one of the following criteria:

• They are married to a US citizen.
• They are the parent of an over-21 US citizen.
• They have a bachelor's degree.
• They served honorably in the US military.
• They can prove they entered the US before they were 18.
• They can prove they have lived in the US for 10+ years.

That applies to 4 US citizens in the entire US (slight exaggeration only) how could it be applied and why to immigrants from Banana Republics where oligarchs keep most of the peasantry in abject poverty?
If people who come here have jobs and families and are trying to make a it a success in the US why would we not have a path way to citizenship for them?

 

[BabaVoss]

That is a poem written by Emma Lazarus in 1883. The intent was to help raise funds for construction of the pedestal, not a how to or a rule to follow, simply a poem.

Then let's trash it. Along with the statue. I mean, if we aren't going to live it, why lie about it?

 

[Gatsby]

But what if they deserve asylum? How is that a "loophole" ?

We don't need to abolish the asylum system entirely, we just need to tighten up the rules for who qualifies so that we don't have constant streams of asylum-seekers heading to our borders. In the last decade, it has become a form of gray-market immigration...not illegal by the letter of the law, but definitely an abuse of what the system was intended to do.

In particular, we shouldn't allow people to claim asylum if America wasn't the first country they entered and/or they took a circuitous route to avoid entering another country. (Maybe there are occasional exceptions but they are rare). In practice, this would limit grants of asylum to Cuba and Haiti, plus the occasional random person who was already legally in the US when their need for asylum arose.

I think of it like this:

 

[Gatsby]

That applies to 4 US citizens in the entire US (slight exaggeration only) how could it be applied and why to immigrants from Banana Republics where oligarchs keep most of the peasantry in abject poverty?
If people who come here have jobs and families and are trying to make a it a success in the US why would we not have a path way to citizenship for them?

??
My proposed amnesty criteria only applies to 4 US citizens? What?
I don't have the exact stats but I would think that those six quite generous and lenient options would cover at least half of illegal immigrants.

 

[Sabre]

Then let's trash it. Along with the statue. I mean, if we aren't going to live it, why lie about it?

It was a poem, just a poem! In 1883 with a growing nation that was a nice sentiment but not set forth as a rule to live by, however, times have changed. There is a time to say enough is enough.

 

[jmotivator]

The should have a path to citizen that starts with entering the country legally and obeyed all state and federal laws while they are in the country.

If they come in illegally or break the law while they are here, no they should not. They should be deported.

A large majority illegal immigrants break the law while in the US since they work under the table and therefor are guilty of tax evasion, or work under a false SSN.

 

[Str8shooter]

Thanks for your post which is completely detached from the thread topic.

Allan, I addressed the thread title.

 

[MamboDervish]

We don't need to abolish the asylum system entirely, we just need to tighten up the rules for who qualifies so that we don't have constant streams of asylum-seekers heading to our borders. In the last decade, it has become a form of gray-market immigration...not illegal by the letter of the law, but definitely an abuse of what the system was intended to do.

In particular, we shouldn't allow people to claim asylum if America wasn't the first country they entered and/or they took a circuitous route to avoid entering another country. (Maybe there are occasional exceptions but they are rare). In practice, this would mainly limit grants of asylum to Cuba and Haiti, plus the occasional random person who was already legally in the US when their need for asylum arose.

I think of it like this:
View attachment 67574677

A fare and cogent response. I commend you.

I would include asylum consideration for any and all South and Central American countries where our own faulty foreign policies have created the need for asylum seekers and refugees. The ones where we trained their military and their dictators at The School of the Americas, and the ones where our own anti-drug pogroms have propped up oppressive right-wing regimes under the pretext of shutting down the drug pipeline, as well as grass roots left wing movements.

"The School of the Americas/WHINSEC in Fort Benning, Georgia, has become notorious for training and enabling torturers, dictators, and massacres throughout the Western Hemisphere. But the SOA’s crimes aren’t a thing of the past — the school is still training the human rights abusers of today, especially through ICE and the Border Patrol."

Shut Down the School of the Americas/ WHINSEC

The School of the Americas/WHINSEC in Fort Benning, Georgia, has become notorious for training and enabling torturers, dictators, and massacres throughout the Western Hemisphere. But the SOA’s crimes aren’t a thing of the past — the school is still training the human rights abusers of today...

jacobin.com

"Located at Fort Benning in Columbus, Georgia, the School of the Americas (soa) is a U.S. Army center that has trained more than sixty thousand soldiers and police, mostly from Latin America, in counterinsurgency and combat-related skills since it was founded in 1946. So widely documented is the participation of the School’s graduates in torture, murder, and political repression throughout Latin America that in 2001 the School officially changed its name to the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation." (emphasis mine)

https://read.dukeupress.edu/books/book/901/The-School-of-the-AmericasMilitary-Training-and

 

[BabaVoss]

Then let's trash it. Along with the statue. I mean, if we aren't going to live it, why lie about it?

It was a poem, just a poem! In 1883 with a growing nation that was a nice sentiment but not set forth as a rule to live by, however, times have changed. There is a time to say enough is enough.

If that's how you feel, then it should be trashed, right?
The Statue of Liberty os no longer a symbol of freedom and opportunity for all, so let's trash it.
It's just a statue, constructed around that same time.
If these things are meaningless to you, toss them aside. Agree?

 

[weaver2]

It was a poem, just a poem! In 1883 with a growing nation that was a nice sentiment but not set forth as a rule to live by, however, times have changed. There is a time to say enough is enough.

In 1883 the population of the world was about 1B. Today the world population is about 8B. Land, food, shelter and monetary resources are beginning to show evidence of weakness. Unfortunately the US has foreign and domestic policies that have exacerbated the situation and made life, especially for the poor, chaotic and sometimes dangerous. In times of war, stress, chaos and deprivation people migrate. The people coming to us are largely the result of our previous actions in their countries. We now have some responsibility to accept these immigrants. The US accepts far fewer based on a % of our population and land mass than any other developed country, even if you count the immigrants we call illegal.
Ireland has 17% immigrant population
Belgium17%
Australia 30%
Germany 18%
Iceland 19%
Sweden 20%
Norway 15%
US 15%
France 13%
Compare the size of the land mass of the US to other countries that accept more immigrants.
Our problem is not immigration.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I have yet to meet many American citizens whose family tree does not contain refugees/immigrants/slaves at some point.

The crux of the matter today is that Trump/MAGA only want to accept white Christian European immigrants.

Everyone else.... Hispanics/Latinos, Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. are considered persona non grata.

 

[reflechissez]

Honduran drug dealers are selling fentanyl on the streets, and they still aren't deported when they are arrested for it, even though they are here illegally.

Show your work.

 

[eohrnberger]

So get in line means no arrest and deportation?

The back of the line is in their country of origin, isn't it?

 

[reflechissez]

The back of the line is in their country of origin, isn't it?

nope

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This liberal is all in favor of arresting criminals of all kinds, and if they are here illegally and caught in the commission of a crime it is the responsible thing to do to incarcerate them and then deport them. I've never wavered "that far left" that I would find excuses for leaving such people free to do as they please and would love to hear the so called "lefty" argument in their defense.
Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what lefties are saying in defense of Honduran fent-slingers on the streets of Portland.

Show your work.

Sure:

“Though police don’t make a point of asking, officer Cristina Serrano, a native Spanish speaker, tells me “more than 90 percent” of the street-level dealers they arrest are undocumented Hondurans who belong to networks on Mexican cartels’ payrolls ”

'It's Like a War Zone': What Happened When Portland Decriminalized Fentanyl

Portland, Oregon, decriminalized fentanyl in 2020 but the experiment failed. Can a blend of law enforcement and harm reduction prevent overdoses?

www.rollingstone.com

 

[Real blank]

The analogy is a bit weird. Unqualified drivers aren't capable of safely driving a motor vehicle.

Undocumented immigrants who aren't criminals and are working are capable of being a good citizen.

An unqualified driver could be a fantastic driver?