Bet most of them spent it too.

Yes they did. Just like the government planned them to.

 

Same argument put forth three decades ago when we had a 1 million illegal immigration problem. Amnesty was the answer. Here we are three decades later with a 11 million illegal immigration problem. The answer is not more of the same.

Personally, I'd like to see the current laws enforced. If one doesn't like the law's, work to change them. Hell, I might join you in the fight when I see that the law doesn't work.

If I remember correctly we didn't have much of a problem from Mexico when we had the worker programs. We might be surprised how many would travel back once the season was over. I say this because the guy that landscaped my yard complained about it. In my mind the over stays are a bit of a different problem, that actually concerns me more, as are the ones from the more dangerous countries.
I don't think we are going to repeal the 14th amendment, so maybe we need some more creative thinking.
While the wall always sounds good, whenever I hear about it now, I think about the pictures @cmartinez posted of his brother rock climbing. And no, I don't think Mexico will pay for it.

 

For the record. I am not in favor of illegal immigration, I just see no benefit from trying to deport the ones already here.

I sure do. If you don't stop rewarding behavior you don't want more of, then how can you expect anything other than more of the behavior you don't want?

Amnesty advocates often spout things like "but while they can stay here they go to the back of the line for the purposes of getting a green card."

Really? Back of the line?

Consider the following situation: Two twin brothers, Andy and Bob, in Mexico have a sister, Cathy, that is a U.S. citizen. She offers to sponsor both of them to become legal immigrants to the United States. One brother, Andy, agrees while Bob chooses to enter the U.S. illegally.

Andy fills out all the paperwork and Cathy enters into a legally binding contract in which she agrees to support Andy at 125% of the poverty level in the event that Andy is unable to find or keep a job at any time while he is a legal permanent resident in the United States and the reason she does this is because it is required and Andy won't even be considered for a Visa unless Cathy's sponsorship ensures that he is unlikely to ever become a burden on the federal government. So they submit the paperwork to USCIS and pay the nearly $500 fee. This then gets approved and the application process gets transferred to the State department at which point they have to submit an application to them and pay another nearly $500 fee. This then gets approved and has taken somewhere in the neighborhood of six months to process during which time Andy would be advised against trying to enter the United States, even on a valid visitor Visa, for fear that the Customs Officer at the point of entry might decide that, because he clearly intents to immigrate to the United States, he might choose to simply stay and not leave when his Visa expires. There is nothing Andy can do to ensure that he will be allowed entry prior to showing up at the checkpoint and, if he isn't, there is no appeal; he will not be allowed past the entry checkpoint and will be required to purchase tickets to leave the country. In the meantime, his twin brother Bob has already been living in the United States for half a year or so.

You might say, well, it's only a few month's difference. But it's not. Now that his Visa has been approved, he must wait for a Visa number to come available and this is based on his "priority date", which is the date his Visa application was approved. Until he gets a Visa number, Andy would still be advised not to attempt to enter the U.S. and for the exact same reason -- the Customs Officer that happens to be at the end of the line he is in at the Customs checkpoint might decide that Andy might not leave when his Visitor's Visa time limit expires and so deny him entry. Well, you might ask, how much more time does he have to stay out of the United States (while Bob continues to live here) before he gets a Visa Number (at which point he gets to pay another ~$700 to finally get his Visa)? Fair question. Here is the answer: Andy would be getting his Visa number today if his Visa application had been approved on or before 15 May 1997. That's right, Andy had to wait over 19 years in order to be able to legally immigrate to the United States while his brother, who entered illegally, has gotten to stay here and very possibly been able to benefit from federal assistance programs since no one sponsored him.

So how can anyone claim that letting someone that is here illegally stay here can in any way be considered being put at the "back of the line" compared to the people that are abiding by the law and having to wait nearly two decades (and for people from the Philippines it's currently 23 years) to get to even set foot on U.S. soil? How can letting them stay do ANYTHING but encourage huge numbers of others to enter illegally versus wait twenty years to get in legally?

When will we stop rewarding people that break the law and punishing people that obey it?

And we do not have to round them all up and put them in prison and spend years for hearings to work themselves through the courts and then pay to send them back. They came here in such numbers because we incentivized them to come here and they stay because we incentivize them to stay. So just stop incentivizing them! If they can't get anything other than emergent care (so no free school for the kids, or anything else) and if the people that knowingly employ them are fined heavily (such as a year's going wages for a legal worker for each illegal worker plus intense scrutiny for five years past the last time you employed an illegal worker), then a huge fraction will self-deport. You don't need to go looking for people that are here illegally, but DO deport the ones you come across incidental to other things.

 

They came here in such numbers because we incentivized them to come here and they stay because we incentivize them to stay.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you've just said.
It's the rule of law that should always be incentiviced in all cases.
Problem is, most laws are created using the Tacitus principle. That is, they demand a 150% compliance, expecting 100% results.
But the real effect they have is that people on both sides of legality (that is, the followers and the enforcers) see through the trick, and end up losing respect for the law itself.
Things would be far better if the laws were less draconian and they were fully (and less discretionarily) enforced, I think.

For the record, Mexico has much tougher laws on immigration than the U.S. It is the principle of things that I'm arguing, and I'm making no comparisons. Truth is, this is an extremely complex problem that has worldwide effects, and I'm only sharing my humble opinion.

 

I agree wholeheartedly with what you've just said.
It's the rule of law that should always be incentiviced in all cases.
Problem is, most laws are created using the Tacitus principle. That is, they demand a 150% compliance, expecting 100% results.
But the real effect they have is that people on both sides of legality (that is, the followers and the enforcers) see through the trick, and end up losing respect for the law itself.

There is a long-standing rule (not always followed, of course) for leaders in the military -- never give an order you know won't be obeyed. The corollary that follows is that you demand that the orders you do give be obeyed. Concepts like these are simply outside the realm of comprehensibility for the overwhelming majority of politicians and lawmakers.

 

There is a long-standing rule (not always followed, of course) for leaders in the military -- never give an order you know won't be obeyed. The corollary that follows is that you demand that the orders you do give be obeyed. Concepts like these are simply outside the realm of comprehensibility for the overwhelming majority of politicians and lawmakers.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

 

... or maybe I should've said "the Ayn Rand principle"

 

Ayn Rand said:
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”

Bingo. Spectacular arrogance. It's this very "thumb in your eye" attitude that handed the election to Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/obama-regulations-231820
Obama's agencies push flurry of 'midnight' actions

 

Get those parkas out!

 

Yes they did. Just like the government planned them to.

Let's be sure to remind ourselves that every dollar spent had to first be picked out of the pocket of a person that had earned that dollar. Taking money from one pocket to spend it out of the other pocket is zero-sum at best.

 

Two twin brothers, Andy and Bob, in Mexico have a sister, Cathy,

That certainly answers my long standing question, "Why don't they just fill out the paperwork?"

"One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
And that answers my questions about why we need some 50,000 new laws per year in the U.S.

Keep up the lively discussions, guys. It's educational.

 

That certainly answers my long standing question, "Why don't they just fill out the paperwork?"

Very few people are aware of how long people wait to come into the U.S. legally (employment-based immigration, temporary or permanent, is different and the wait times are generally less, if approved). I think there would be a lot less sympathy for illegal immigration if more people did know. What I don't understand is why politicians that oppose illegal immigration don't point it out -- unless THEY are not aware of it. I certainly wasn't aware of it until I literally stumbled across it on the State Department's website while I was going through the Visa application process for my wife and step-daughter. Then I made a point of researching it, which wasn't at all difficult.

Fortunately for us, Visa numbers are made available immediately for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, though the entire process still took ten months and cost right about $4000 just in fees to the government -- I only spent $100 on attorney fees to review both application packets I put together myself while most applicants pay about $3500 for an immigration attorney to prepare them (per person, but there might be family discounts from some attorneys) and most people believe that you HAVE to go through an attorney, despite the fact that the steps are actually extremely well laid out on the USCIS website.

And we ran head on into the don't-dare-come-in-on-your-visitor-visa issue. We knew it was going to be several more months before the LPR visa process was finalized and so we made plans for them to come over for three months on their existing and still valid visitor visas. On a hunch I contacted USCIS to make sure that their visitor visas actually were still valid, which they confirmed, but I was told that there would be a good chance that they would be denied entry at the airport since the Customs Official would see that they had an in-process immigrant visa application on file and so was likely to conclude that there was too high of a risk that they would not actually leave at the end of their legal stay but, instead, file a Change of Status petition (which would have cost $1200 each). I pointed out that they would have non-refundable round trip tickets and was told that that meant nothing since many people that stay beyond their visas purchase such tickets. So I asked what I could do in advance to ensure that they would be allowed entry since she would be coming in after a twenty hour flight with a one-year old child. They said it was all up to the Customs Agent she actually saw upon arrival. I called Customs at the San Francisco airport and was told the same thing and informed that, if they were denied, they would have to remain in that part of the airport until their departing flight, meaning that we would have to spend another thousand dollars in tickets and, much worse, that the two of them would be stuck there until they could get a seat on a flight, which might take days, and then fly another twenty hours or so home. Way to much to put a mother with an infant through.

 

And we do not have to round them all up and put them in prison and spend years for hearings to work themselves through the courts and then pay to send them back. They came here in such numbers because we incentivized them to come here and they stay because we incentivize them to stay. So just stop incentivizing them! If they can't get anything other than emergent care (so no free school for the kids, or anything else) and if the people that knowingly employ them are fined heavily (such as a year's going wages for a legal worker for each illegal worker plus intense scrutiny for five years past the last time you employed an illegal worker), then a huge fraction will self-deport. You don't need to go looking for people that are here illegally, but DO deport the ones you come across incidental to other things.

I always thought E-Verify would work too. But I guess not. Clever, those illegals. I had some hope for this one as well:
In 2010, Sens. Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham — who are big players in the current debate — proposed a hard Social Security card system, in which the cards would include biometric information (fingerprints, DNA, etc.) of the owner, to prevent fraud. The Octogang framework calls for a "requiring prospective workers to demonstrate both legal status and identity, through non-forgeable electronic means prior to obtaining employment," which hints at the same sort of thing. Obama's framework "mandates a fraud‐resistant, tamper‐resistant Social Security card and requires workers to use fraud‐and tamper‐resistant documents to prove authorization to work in the United States."

It's not clear they're talking about a biometric card, but it does point in the direction of Schumer and Graham's previous proposal. But this would fundamentally change the purpose of Social Security cards, which until 1972 explicitly stated that they are "not for identification." You don't get much more identifying than DNA. Under this proposal, they would become a de facto national ID card, complete with all the privacy concerns that such a proposal brings. Congress will have to decide if the benefits in terms of making E-Verify more viable (among other advantages) are worth the costs.

Anyway, It kind of looks like they have exhausted your ideas.
I didn't realize there had been so many attempts
.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-failed-over-and-over/?utm_term=.ae3f0170b7c4

I remember 2008 when Arizona cracked down. The golf course couldn't get the sand traps refilled until the next year. Since then it's been business as usual-replaced all the irrigation systems over the last 2 years. Our club is very careful, but the contractors, not so much.

 

Let's be sure to remind ourselves that every dollar spent had to first be picked out of the pocket of a person that had earned that dollar. Taking money from one pocket to spend it out of the other pocket is zero-sum at best.

How do you feel about the Carrier deal?

 

I don't know enough about it one way or the other, except for its symbolism as some of the best job news in years. The fact that saving 1000 jobs is even news tells you a lot about the current environment.

 

How do you feel about the Carrier deal?

I feel great about it... why do you ask?

 

I don't know enough about it one way or the other, except for its symbolism as some of the best job news in years. The fact that saving 1000 jobs is even news tells you a lot about the current environment.

Yeah, I know. I'm kind of okay with incentives for new business, but somewhat perplexed at incentives to keep business.
Felt a little bad for the Carrier guys down the street whose jobs were still going to Mexico.
I guess he may be on his way to Chicago to do the same deal for Oreo.

 

I feel great about it... why do you ask?

I was just curious about how Wayneh felt about using 7 million of Indiana taxpayer money and giving it to Carrier since he doesn't seem to like those things.
But I bet things are still good for Monterrey.

Don't tell anybody it's a green building.

 

I was just curious about how Wayneh felt about using 7 million of Indiana taxpayer money and giving it to Carrier since he doesn't seem to like those things.
But I bet things are still good for Monterrey.

Don't tell anybody it's a green building.

Unfortunately (depending on how you look at it) for everyone, globalization is here to stay. A profitable and competent market will always be subject to change, and not always for the better for some people. If manufacture stops being profitable in a certain place, then the people in that place must either develop new skills or migrate to a place where the skills that they already have are in demand.

But we humans (and especially old humans) find the speed at which this dynamic is happening quite daunting. Monterrey is no different. I'd say that for every 5 foreign companies that start operations here, another 4 migrate either to Asia or South America. Lately, a few South Korean companies have opened new plants down here.

 

It looks like the average union worker for Carrier is making ~$23 an hour so I don't have a problem with them keeping their jobs.

That $46,000 a year base pay for a single worker which is enough to live a decent life on if a person has any degree of financial management skills at all.