President Trump & Immigration

[Conan71]

So we all know by now a draft memo originating supposedly from John Kelly the new director of DHS called for the deployment of up to 100,000 National Guard troops to enforce immigration law by rounding up illegal immigrants.

As much as I have a distaste for those flaunting our prior lack of immigration enforcement, and the lax attitude of the last four or five admins about immigration enforcement, I have grave concerns about what havoc this would wreak economically and what sort of humanitarian crisis this would create.

Americans and American business have become dependent on tasks typically done by migrant workers.  Our agri-business depends on a lot of labor from from this segment of the population.  There are jobs Americans won't do at any compensation level which are either too physically taxing or just too disgusting for them to attempt.  I've done work inside slaughter plants and rendering plants related to the business I am.  The jobs there are nasty and can be dangerous and difficult.  We have not raised kids in generations who want to pick fruit or vegetables for a living or even on a seasonal basis.

Trump would have to realize fruit would remain on trees, vegetables would go unpicked, the meat supply would become dependent on foreign imports and that's a whole other issue to worry about.  Consumer prices at the stores would sky-rocket and farmers and ranchers would be forced out of business.  There's not one bit of exaggeration in this line of thought.

What becomes of property owners who have rented to these immigrants who no longer can pay their mortgage because their renter was suddenly deported?

What becomes of the American-born children of these immigrants if their parents are deported?  Like it or not, those children are American citizens and they have the same rights as any of us who were born in the U.S.

What would become of hundreds of thousands of deportees with nowhere to go or live?  That becomes a major humanitarian crisis.

We have needed a sensible approach to deal with those who are peacefully living in our country and contributing through their hard work.  I agree those here for strictly nefarious purposes need to be run out and I do believe we need better border security.

If this draft memo really was a serious thought by the administration or one or a few of his appointees, it shows no fundamental understanding of how our economy functions and no consideration for unintended consequences to everyone else if this really came to pass.

One has to wonder where all these leaks came from, but where did the line of thought come from which appears to have created a legitimate and very well-detailed memo from our new director of Homeland Security?  Secondly, how does Trump not appear to be daft on this issue if his appointee to this key position is making directives like this without his boss' knowledge?

The AP's copy of this memo is in the story linked below:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-document-trump-national-guard-draft-memo-20170217-htmlstory.html

[swake]

So we all know by now a draft memo originating supposedly from John Kelly the new director of DHS called for the deployment of up to 100,000 National Guard troops to enforce immigration law by rounding up illegal immigrants.

As much as I have a distaste for those flaunting our prior lack of immigration enforcement, and the lax attitude of the last four or five admins about immigration enforcement, I have grave concerns about what havoc this would wreak economically and what sort of humanitarian crisis this would create.

Americans and American business have become dependent on tasks typically done by migrant workers.  Our agri-business depends on a lot of labor from from this segment of the population.  There are jobs Americans won't do at any compensation level which are either too physically taxing or just too disgusting for them to attempt.  I've done work inside slaughter plants and rendering plants related to the business I am.  The jobs there are nasty and can be dangerous and difficult.  We have not raised kids in generations who want to pick fruit or vegetables for a living or even on a seasonal basis.

Trump would have to realize fruit would remain on trees, vegetables would go unpicked, the meat supply would become dependent on foreign imports and that's a whole other issue to worry about.  Consumer prices at the stores would sky-rocket and farmers and ranchers would be forced out of business.  There's not one bit of exaggeration in this line of thought.

What becomes of property owners who have rented to these immigrants who no longer can pay their mortgage because their renter was suddenly deported?

What becomes of the American-born children of these immigrants if their parents are deported?  Like it or not, those children are American citizens and they have the same rights as any of us who were born in the U.S.

What would become of hundreds of thousands of deportees with nowhere to go or live?  That becomes a major humanitarian crisis.

We have needed a sensible approach to deal with those who are peacefully living in our country and contributing through their hard work.  I agree those here for strictly nefarious purposes need to be run out and I do believe we need better border security.

If this draft memo really was a serious thought by the administration or one or a few of his appointees, it shows no fundamental understanding of how our economy functions and no consideration for unintended consequences to everyone else if this really came to pass.

One has to wonder where all these leaks came from, but where did the line of thought come from which appears to have created a legitimate and very well-detailed memo from our new director of Homeland Security?  Secondly, how does Trump not appear to be daft on this issue if his appointee to this key position is making directives like this without his boss' knowledge?

The AP's copy of this memo is in the story linked below:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-document-trump-national-guard-draft-memo-20170217-htmlstory.html

See, this is all correct. And most sensible people want secure borders. That starts with reasonable immigration rules that allows people to immigrate to this country in numbers that our labor force needs. If we allowed a reasonable number of people in legally that satisfied employers, they wouldn't need to employ illegals which would drive down the number of illegals because there would be no ready large number of ready jobs for them. If we allowed a reasonable number of people in legally, we could also do a better job of keeping bad people out, because today they can just hide among the large numbers that come across illegally today.

NAFTA is part of the solution too. One of the best solutions to illegal immigration is a wealthy Mexico. And they are getting there. Mexico's PPP per capita income is approaching Spain's average income, their average income is similar today to Brazil, Chile and Argentina. It's higher than Turkey and even China's per capita income but you would never know that from the rhetoric on the right. Mexico is no longer a 3rd world country, they are an emerging 2nd world economy. That is good for us as a trading partner and for having a safe and secure hemisphere. This is why most illegals today are from Central America or Asia, many entering the country legally and just overstaying their Visa. I do wonder how well Mexico might be doing if it wasn't for the American war on drugs and our insatiable thirst for drugs that creates such havoc in Mexico border cities. The pain there is OUR fault. Treating Mexico as an enemy and damaging their economy doesn't help us, it hurt us.

[cannon_fodder]

I agree with you.  In addition to your reasoning - using military to round people up is  also bad PR andit isn't likely to be as effective as they hope.  The National Guard isn't trained for such a task, the odds of marginal success at the mission while at the same time violating a ton of civil rights is far too high.  Not because our soldiers are bad people, but they are not trained as policemen and aren't immigration officials... so policing immigration seems like a bad job for them.

That said, even in your disagreement with the memo there is a common misunderstanding:

As much as I have a distaste for those flaunting our prior lack of immigration enforcement, and the lax attitude of the last four or five admins about immigration enforcement...

We have sent more government employees to the border, spent more money, and deported more people by an order of magnitude.  But the constant drum beat that this is some unaddressed crisis convinces people that we aren't doing anything.

Obama deported more people than any other president.  Bush deported more people than the president before him. Clinton deported more people than the president before him. We've been an absolute deportation machine!


http://blogs.reuters.com/data-dive/2015/02/25/tracking-obamas-deportation-numbers/

In that there are millions and millions of people eligible for deportation, Bush quietly focused on criminals and repeat offenders.  Obama expanded that policy and made it more public, even instituting DACA - basically making the long standing policy official.  In that we can't get through the backlog anyway, may as well make it  official that we are concentrating on those that we really want out.

And even so, we are deporting more and more people.  But most Americans have the impression that we have been lax.  Or that the border isn't secure.

But we have also added more and more border agents.  We have built more and more fencing.  We have spent more and more money on border security.



And since then we have added still more and more border agents.  At one point the Senate passed a proposal to double the number again, so we would have enough border agents to place one every 250 feet on the southern border.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jul/01/bill-maher/bill-maher-said-immigration-bill-will-make-border-/

Of course, in the same period of time we have doubled the budget for the border patrol.  Since Clinton took office the budget has gone up 700%.


Meanwhile, less and less people are caught at the border.  Net immigration from Mexico is thought to be zero.  But people are still convinced that there is a crisis and that we need emergency measures. That we need to have the military patrol our streets to get rid of "them" and protect "us."  We have already tripled the border guard and multiplied the budget seven fold - how much more government do we need before Republicans are satisfied?

[erfalf]

So because we have grown accustomed to an illegally supported economy, we shouldn't get in it's way?

That has worked out well for us in the past (says the housing market). Just saying.

I understand the PR is atrocious, and a zillion other things about this plan in particular are ludicrous, however the reasoning for not doing it because it will upset the economy or something is just as lame.

Again, that's just my opinion. And I just tend to think it is reasoning like this that basically stops us from making progress on anything, anywhere, ever. The "because that's the way we have always done it" attitude is a disease in the workplace, I don't see it serving society any better outside the workplace.

I know I am going to get excoriated for this as a bigot or something... so have at it now...

[cannon_fodder]

Nothing you said was bigoted...

The reasons stated so far in this thread to not call out military troops to the streets of US cities to round up undocumented immigrants (that term encompassing illegal immigrants who hopped the border as well as those who came legally and just stayed) are:

1) Economic Disruption;

2) Bad PR;

3) Lack of effectiveness;

4) Cost; and

5) Risk of violations of citizen's civil rights.

As you rightfully pointed out, there are a zillion other things wrong with this plan.

You chose to focus on the economic argument Conan made.  Specifically, 1) we are accustomed to an "illegally" supported economy, and you feel this is 2) creating an artificial bubble, and 3) the only reason not to do it is inertia to change.  Before I address each of those, let me point out that none of them are a reason to deport millions of people.  The reasons given by Trump include: 

To stop a crime waive that doesn't exist.
To protect the children from things that don't exist.
To stop the Mexicans from taking our jobs when 95% of Americans are employed.
To stop the Mexicans from living off the government (which is paradoxical to the previous statement and untrue).
And because it's illegal.

I'm not arguing for open borders.  Few are.  What we are discussing is the resources devoted to and mechanism of immigration enforcement.  Presumably, you are in favor of increasing those resources still further for your stated reasons:

1) We are accustomed to an "illegally" supported economy.

Essentially, the statement is that the economy is generating a lot of wealth from undocumented immigrants so we don't want to change it.  Isn't that a rational position?  Certainly generating wealth isn't a reason to want to destroy the system.  And even if we did, one is hard pressed to find an economist who advocates for sudden massive fluctuations in an efficiently functioning market. Certainly arguing to "call out the troops" to destroy a segment of the market isn't rational in and of itself.

2) Bubble.

Comparing illegal immigration to the housing bubble is not an apt comparison.  The housing bubble was wealth based on speculation - John Q bought a house that cost more than 25% of his annual income (a warning point) and then Jane Doe bought it for an even a worse ratio.  As long as the pyramid scheme continued everything was great.  And the scheme was(is) supported by government subsidies that encourages home buyers to buy as much as they can (the more mortgage deduction you get!) and lenders to flip their loans as quickly as possible (transfers risk to the government and generates more transaction fees).   As soon as once cycle is delayed, things start to fall apart quickly.

Illegal immigration generates wealth directly from production - there is no speculation and no pyramid scheme required to support it.  If anything, the illegal immigration economy is less based on credit than the general economy. With no credit and no speculation, I'm not sure a bubble is even possible.

and 3) Inertia.

For all the reasons stated above, this isn't simply inertia. Furthermore, in defense of institutional inertia, sudden and dramatic shifts should demand dramatic reasons.  We simply don't have them here.
- - -


The easiest way to take care of a problem is usually on the supply side.  There are almost always less suppliers than there are consumers. They are easier to influence and often have more to lose.

Want to crack down on drug cartels? Create a legal market so consumers can get the supply.
Want to stop housing bubbles?  Requiring greater equity before the fed will guarantee a loan.
Want to limit illegal immigration - focus on the supply of jobs. 

11,000,000 are in the US because at least half of them are employed at legitimate businesses.  All the talk is on "rounding up" illegal immigrants and shipping them across the border. That's never stopped them from coming back before, it seems unlikely to be successful now.  What has stopped them?

They don't come when there are no jobs.  When we have more labor than jobs, Mexican immigration stalls dramatically.  So why not attack their jobs if we are serious?

Make an easy system for employers to verify legal status and put a system in place to verify that status when the work papers on file expire.  The fines can be substantial and grow with each offense ($250 to $10k per employee), they can result in jail time for managers.   Yet total fines in 2012 (last year I found data) was i the $12mil range, with less than 400 companies  being fined. The median fine was $11k. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2012/12/23/audits-illegal-immigrants/1787213/

Under our current system, we spent $138 million trying to enforce the employment laws, resulting in 339 companies being fined.  We spent ~ $5 Billion dollars trying to round up and deport illegal immigrants. Our efforts have doubled down again and again on the wack-a-mole strategy of deporting people, it hasn't worked.  Try to do something different maybe?

If we make it hard  for illegal immigrants to fine employment and we continue to focus on deporting criminal immigrants - we can actually get where many want us to be.  If we couple it with saner immigration laws, we could actually tackle the issue in a comprehensive way.  Sprinkle in some drug policy changes and even less would need to flee violence (taking away another reason for immigration).

[erfalf]

I'm with you on the supply side.

My point really was that we often let complacency get in the way of good decision making. You just took it several steps further by offering actual solutions. And I'm totally in agreement when it comes to supply side solutions. Apparently there are a lot of people out there not as concerned with the paper work as I am when we have a new hire. Else we wouldn't really be having this discussion I have a feeling.

[heironymouspasparagus]

You can find my comments going back a long time on this -  IF illegal immigration were a real problem (which it is not - it is just the system that has evolved to allow companies to import cheap, slave labor waged workers) - the fix is simple.  Prosecute every CEO, President, VP of companies that hire them.  Prison times - at least one year per event.  And say, $1 million fine per worker/event.  In 3 weeks there would be no more illegals in the US.

The ongoing wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth is ignorant.  And Repube obstructionism has stopped 'immigration reform' for decades because they know that if there is a valid worker program, all their corporate buddies will have to treat immigrant labor decently and pay decent wages...much higher than the $1.50 an hour average John Pickle Company got away with paying his illegal conscripts - actually held as slaves in their compound.

Expand and make the HX-B program work the way it should.  Problem solved.  It really is trivial to "fix" this so-called problem.

[Conan71]

It appears that Obama's deportation numbers were padded by re-defining what a deportation is.  For the first time, border turn backs were called deportations, according to the previous DHS director.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/12/deportations-come-mostly-from-border-dhs-chief-say/

And for those who don't trust the veracity of the Washington Times:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

[cannon_fodder]

That's interesting and I wasn't aware of that, thanks for the info.  But it was not as flippant as the Washington Times article makes it seem:

Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.

Now, the vast majority of border crossers who are apprehended get fingerprinted and formally deported. The change began during the George W. Bush administration and accelerated under Obama. The policy stemmed in part from a desire to ensure that people who had crossed into the country illegally would have formal charges on their records.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

Essentially, under Bush and even more under Obama they cut back on "catch and release" and instead put the people  through the formal deportation process so they had charges on their records.  Ergo, they got counted in deportation stats.  So it wasn't an arbitrary change in the way the stats were kept.

So Obama's numbers WERE padded because he deported people who would previously have just been dumped over the border.  But he also cut way back on the "catch and release" that conservatives have complained about.  Either way, the number of people he "rounded up" was far less than it would appear at first glace.
- - - -

In a broader sense, I feel the immigration issue is so important to some people because it is a simple "us" vs "them."  The solution - we go after "them."  Whether it addresses any real threat, how it turns out economically, and whether it is the right thing to do is irrelevant. So long as we are going after "them,"  the "us" faction should be placated and focused less on issues that may have a more significant impact, but more nuanced solutions.

On Trump's newest memo - it introduces uncertainty but doesn't really help.  Was ICE and Border Patrol not already as busy as they could be?  So adding more people to the "priority" list really just bumps the previous priorities down the list. Meaning criminals are no longer actually the priority.

[Conan71]

So because we have grown accustomed to an illegally supported economy, we shouldn't get in it's way?

That has worked out well for us in the past (says the housing market). Just saying.

I understand the PR is atrocious, and a zillion other things about this plan in particular are ludicrous, however the reasoning for not doing it because it will upset the economy or something is just as lame.

Again, that's just my opinion. And I just tend to think it is reasoning like this that basically stops us from making progress on anything, anywhere, ever. The "because that's the way we have always done it" attitude is a disease in the workplace, I don't see it serving society any better outside the workplace.

I know I am going to get excoriated for this as a bigot or something... so have at it now...

I get where you are coming from here.  I've always blanched at the logic that a problem seems too big or insurmountable, so just do nothing to solve it.

I've also always had a view of immigration that borders need to be sealed, we need to stop the flow of anchor babies, and stop people from crossing who are doing so only to take advantage of our social largesse.  I raise my eyebrows when I hear a commentator say: "The only crime this illegal immigrant is guilty of is possessing a fake green card".  Wait, we just stepped over "illegal immigrant" to say their "only" crime was something else. Illegal is illegal.

In other words, I've pretty much always taken the hard line conservative view on the issue of illegal immigration.  The problem with hard line conservitves, like hard line liberals, is they very seldom consider the unintended consequences of their actions.

My main point is we have somewhere around 5 to 10 million illegal immigrants who are functioning and contributing to our economy.  Are they paying all the taxes they should?  Likely not.  Do they put additional burden on the healthcare system, public safety, etc?  Yes.  Estimates are in the billions as to how much the issue of illegal immigration costs us on an annual basis.  But through their sales tax contributions and property tax paid on their behalf they technically are contributing to the funding mechanisms for public safety and city infrastructure- at least for the way these things are funded in Tulsa.

I've never had the chance to ask in illegal immigrant if they prefer to stay in the shadow economy or if they would like to file a 1040 every year, pay for health insurance, be able to get and repay student loans, etc.  My guess is many would like to be here without the worry they might be deported.  I can only guess that if paying taxes meant the dream of homeownership, SBA loans, or a college education were achievable that most illegal immigrants would have no problem doing so.

I simply wanted to point out our economy could be cast into turmoil if we lost these millions of illegal immigrants who are doing jobs our economy apparently needs.  CF was spot on with his comments about there not being enough native born supply to fill all jobs needed in our economy.

We have successfully managed to export the most menial of our manufacturing tasks offshore so we can continue to pay the same price we paid for consumer goods 20 years ago.  For at least the last century (and more likely since the abolition of slavery) we have depended on migrant labor for agriculture.  We do this partially to keep the prices low but by and large because we don't have the supply of native born Americans willing to do the tasks the immigrant population is currently doing.

I really don't think it's hyperbole to suggest if we cleared out all illegal immigrants in a large round up that our agriculture industry as we know it would collapse.  We simply do not have the supply of labor at ready to step in and take those jobs.  Even in times of higher unemployment, former bank tellers or computer programmers weren't exactly beating down doors to pick fruit or clean up cattle entrails in slaughter plants.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Needs to be mandatory viewing.

https://www.facebook.com/AwarenessAct/videos/1295228900491644/

[patric]

Authorities Arrest 22-Year-Old Dreamer After She Speaks To Media

WASHINGTON ― Federal immigration authorities arrested a 22-year-old woman in Jackson, Mississippi, on Wednesday shortly after she spoke to the media about the detention of her family. Law enforcement had initially declined to arrest Daniela Vargas, who was previously granted deportation reprieve under the Obama administration's deferred action program.

On Feb. 15, Vargas was half-asleep at home when Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents came for her family. Her father, a house painter, kissed her goodbye on his way to work and was apprehended in the driveway, Vargas told The Huffington Post last week. She says she never saw her brother, a construction worker who was also detained.

Vargas' family came to the U.S. from Argentina over 15 years ago. She'd previously had protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The program now has an uncertain future under President Donald Trump.

When the agents arrived, Vargas had a problem: Her DACA status, which has to be renewed every two years, had expired ― and because of the high cost of renewal, $495, her application had only been received on Feb. 10. (Vargas provided HuffPost with a copy of her receipt.) Scared, Vargas went into her house, locked the door and hid in a closet for hours while she sobbed and called her mother. Eventually, she says, ICE agents forced their way in with a warrant, guns raised. The house was searched ― officers had previously found a gun, which Vargas said the family owned for protection ― and she was handcuffed. As local news reporters arrived, she was eventually released.

Agents declined to arrest Vargas at that time, she told HuffPost. Her father and brother were sent to a detention center in Louisiana, where they now await deportation. (An ICE spokesperson at the time described their detention as routine enforcement.)

When Vargas last spoke to HuffPost, in an email on Tuesday, she said she was scared she was being watched, and was moving around because she was "afraid to stay in one spot and be taken back to Argentina."

Vargas told local news outlets about her story. On Wednesday, she spoke at a news conference organized by local immigration advocates to highlight immigrants' contributions to the community, according to her attorney, Abby Peterson. Afterward, she was pulled over and arrested, and is now being processed by immigration authorities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/authorities-detain-daniela-vargas-dreamer_us_58b724e8e4b023018c6c7abc

[heironymouspasparagus]

Trump.  The evil is strong in this one.

[guido911]

Authorities Arrest 22-Year-Old Dreamer After She Speaks To Media

WASHINGTON ― Federal immigration authorities arrested a 22-year-old woman in Jackson, Mississippi, on Wednesday shortly after she spoke to the media about the detention of her family. Law enforcement had initially declined to arrest Daniela Vargas, who was previously granted deportation reprieve under the Obama administration's deferred action program.

On Feb. 15, Vargas was half-asleep at home when Immigration and Custom Enforcement agents came for her family. Her father, a house painter, kissed her goodbye on his way to work and was apprehended in the driveway, Vargas told The Huffington Post last week. She says she never saw her brother, a construction worker who was also detained.

Vargas' family came to the U.S. from Argentina over 15 years ago. She'd previously had protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The program now has an uncertain future under President Donald Trump.

When the agents arrived, Vargas had a problem: Her DACA status, which has to be renewed every two years, had expired ― and because of the high cost of renewal, $495, her application had only been received on Feb. 10. (Vargas provided HuffPost with a copy of her receipt.) Scared, Vargas went into her house, locked the door and hid in a closet for hours while she sobbed and called her mother. Eventually, she says, ICE agents forced their way in with a warrant, guns raised. The house was searched ― officers had previously found a gun, which Vargas said the family owned for protection ― and she was handcuffed. As local news reporters arrived, she was eventually released.

Agents declined to arrest Vargas at that time, she told HuffPost. Her father and brother were sent to a detention center in Louisiana, where they now await deportation. (An ICE spokesperson at the time described their detention as routine enforcement.)

When Vargas last spoke to HuffPost, in an email on Tuesday, she said she was scared she was being watched, and was moving around because she was "afraid to stay in one spot and be taken back to Argentina."

Vargas told local news outlets about her story. On Wednesday, she spoke at a news conference organized by local immigration advocates to highlight immigrants' contributions to the community, according to her attorney, Abby Peterson. Afterward, she was pulled over and arrested, and is now being processed by immigration authorities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/authorities-detain-daniela-vargas-dreamer_us_58b724e8e4b023018c6c7abc

She is apparently on the fast track on the "get the hell out" train. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/us/daniela-vargas-dreamer-deportation-friday/index.html

Going to see lots of these sad stories.

[patric]

She is apparently on the fast track on the "get the hell out" train. http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/02/us/daniela-vargas-dreamer-deportation-friday/index.html

Going to see lots of these sad stories.

Immigrant arrested by ICE after dropping daughter off at school, sending shockwaves through neighborhood

Romulo Avelica-Gonzalez had just dropped off his 12-year-old daughter Tuesday morning at her Lincoln Heights school when two black, unmarked vehicles surrounded his car.

The arrest so shook the school, a public charter called Academia Avance, that administrators held an assembly Tuesday afternoon to discuss what happened and to ease fears. The school's executive director, Ricardo Mireles, has since ordered his teachers to talk to students whose parents are here illegally about creating a family plan in case they are detained or deported.