Immigration

[Phoebe]

If people want to discuss immigration policy that might be interesting, given that we're likely to see a lot more action on this front. But I don't think it will be terribly productive to discuss it in the context of political disputes about executive orders and the like. Or maybe just for selfish reasons, I feel I have a lot more in common with people to build on when we're debating the ideas themselves. Maybe it's easier to talk when we aren't thinking about things like "why is this person's eighty year old mother being detained suddenly for hours in an airport when she has a legal visa?" and instead can discuss who should have the legal visa in the first place.

One of the reasons Trump prevailed imo is we really do have serious problems with immigration policy and nobody is addressing it effectively. Congress has failed on this issue whether it was the Democrats or Republicans who were in charge. Maybe a lot of us can agree on that. But what's the best way forward? Do we decide this based on some kind of fairness principle or do we set policy based on which industries need which sorts of labor? What obligations do we have to people like the students who went to school or college by coming out of hiding, and who have lived here since they were young children and have no other home or homeland? Why can't we solve this issue by preventing people from hiring illegal workers? Anyway, just thought it would be good to have a different discussion because I for one am a lot more open to ideas from across the political spectrum when I don't think they're being tied to specific and immoral acts.

[Stan]

One problem is that money can buy a certain amount of immunity from the law. It's common knowledge that drug enforcement focuses on poor and minority neighborhoods that are less likely to have money for lawyers or political connections. The same happens with immigration enforcement. The owner of the factory that exploits workers is likely either a city/state official or donates to one. Workers have no clout so can be treated in almost any way to show effort and bow to xenophobia.

I don't have a plan but it's obvious that building a wall is moronic. The number of Mexicans are flowing more towards Mexico than away. The economies of Mexico and the U.S. are heavily integrated - Trump has created a new conflict with this to get the votes of racists but it is going to hurt both countries. There is also the added fact that most of new influx of people are not Mexican, they are from central America and are seeking asylum - they want to be rounded up so that they can start the process. They cannot be deported without being processed as long as the U.S. abides by the Geneva Convention. Most of these people are fleeing gang violence and screwed up political situations - their countries suck due to bad American interventions and the huge American demand for drugs.

[Ronster]

Without sounding too sound-byte-ish or cliche, but I humbly submit that we should just try to enforce the laws we have without making more. Removing laws from the books is a valid option too so long as it is done in the proper manner.

A border wall? Well it was a campaign promise that has also been discussed by at least 2 other Presidents. In fact there was 38 miles of it constructed.

The simplest answers can be the best, but it isn't always. When diagnosing a problem which could have several equally plausible solutions, start with the cheapest and easiest ones. Not sure a wall fits that bill, but if we have multiple billions to give to Iran, why don't we have 36 B out of that for our own selves? This is rhetorical, not an actual question asking for a response. I do not wish to direct or draw any attention from the immigration issue into other political discussions.

[Stan]

We didn't give any money to Iran. We released money of theirs that we had been holding onto as punishment.

The thing is, we already have many walls and fences along the border, as well as electronics and patrols. I'm not sure how a wall is going to help. I agree that we should enforce our laws; Obama has increased enforcement and deported more immigrants. What is needed more than improved border protection is more people capable of processing pending cases.

I don't see any real, effective reform happening from snap decisions or threats to deport millions quickly. I don't see much happening until there is a less partisan congress. The GOP has enough votes now to do something but it's an issue that they've been historically divided on.

With the current tax structure, there also isn't a lot of leeway to change anything in the budget by much unless you're willing to give a good sized cut to the military.

[bralbovsky]

A) immigration reform requires that one establish what we have been really bad at: admitting we need people from other places both at the top of the economy and at the bottom. We pretend that we don't want any of these folks around, while we sip our inexpensive orange juice, and yes, mainline heroin in suburban Wyoming. Our bad, restrictive laws created the flow of Mexican immigrants around the barriers we erected. We forced people to take chemical showers and subjected them to abusive searches, so they chose to avoid the insult and dodge the checkpoints. If we made laws we ourselves would be ok following, we'd get better compliance. Also, looking at our own emerging subculture of hopelessness might be a good way to avoid the coming catastrophe.

B) The best way to keep the riffraff and "roving element" out is, as always, reduce demand for our blood. Don't prop up dictators. Don't turn a blind eye to oppression. Don't be complicit in institutional or corporate terror.

C) Pushing other governments to create more humane places for their own poor people to live is way more cost effective than any barrier. People don't abandon their language, their homes, their communities, their traditions and their relatives because it's easy. They do it because they feel they have few better choices.

D) For years, folks wanted to come here because we had the best schools, we made the best scientists, we cultivated open literature. Every Rotary exchange student, every writing fellow, every paper science student from Brazil, every Lost Boy either wanted to stay here and make their marks on our terms or wanted to take what they learned here and go home to make their countries more like ours. How many executive orders will it take to dismantle that? I wish it was a bigger number. Even stupid people can count that high.

Berlin and China found out that the long term price of walls is isolation and stagnation. Walls lock people in even better than they lock people out.

[Phoebe]

So... putting aside the issue of whether it's a good idea to pointlessly antagonize our allies...

Can someone tell me why it is the job of the U.S. to clean up a horrible humanitarian mess that Australia made for itself? Baffled as to why that's not the story being told by Trump and his advisors right now: basically you didn't want to let them in, so you kept them locked up and treated them horribly all this time, and now we're supposed to solve it?

On the other hand: why is it so damn hard for us to solve this? Why wouldn't we want, for instance, Kurds? You'd think we would want every possible angry Kurd we could lay hands on. You have Syria problems? Turkey problems? Iraq problems? Iran problems? You need to rescue some angry, disillusioned Kurds, right? What am I missing here?

[Mike]

[Phoebe]

Right, I have no problem with honoring our agreements or making such agreements. I'm asking why it wasn't their job, as a wealthy and humanitarian nation themselves, to solve it? (Presumably Trump can't make this argument without indicting his own policies, so... is this maybe a stone Obama tied to him before jumping away?) I gather they have people trying to get into the country by boat, sometimes due to exploitative human smuggling efforts, so they decided to round them up in an offshore detention facility and institute a new rule saying that if you come by boat, you can't seek asylum there as a refugee. The policy has changed a lot so I'm not clear on all the details of how that policy evolved or where it stands exactly now, but now here are these people trapped in offshore refugee camps, by all accounts in terrible conditions, unable to go to Australia. They could go somewhere else but they don't want to - not sure what the real extent of their free choice on that point is.

The reason I am curious about this is that the U.S. obviously has parallel problems - especially now that one presumes the administration is planning to deport massive numbers of people - and I'd like to know how that works in another country. Why don't we want to take in precisely those people who are fleeing regimes with whom we have big disputes and problems? It seems like we would be intentionally putting out the welcome mat for such folks and trying to pick their brains.

[bralbovsky]

We did it, and continue to do it, for Cubans. If they looked at the demographics, they should find Cuban refugees among the most loyal Red State groups. If they'd get out of their own way, they could make the elections actually sporting without cheating, but that would require letting brown or sort of brown people into the country.

[Phoebe]