Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I’m thinking of home too. However, we have a virtual wall, or we don’t. Or option c: we allow under 18 (16? I don’t know) to benefit regardless of status.

So there you go. We still have an R house, senate, and president. They can do this anytime they wish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Walls work. Yes, there will be people digging under them and climbing over but slowing them down is good on its own and it will give border patrol time to get there and deport them back to Mexico.

There was a teen who just broke her back from jumping an 18 foot fence. She want going anywhere until Border Patrol came to get her.

So, then the existing walls work. Maybe shoring up some sections is a good idea.
But a WALL is impossible/not worth the cost.

I want to be sure you understand the return on investment. I know it’s basic but a lot of people even who own businesses don’t get it.
Business-wise, if hiring 4 more technicians, costs you $250k, but the business sees a bump of $350k in revenue, you should hire the techs.
If you have an investment idea that costs $1 mil, but over x period it will only bump up revenue by $800k, then don’t do it.

Bad roi to cover the cover the entirety of the S border, even if it were possible. Which it’s not because of Geography 101

What are you even talking about? If you only put in sections of border wall, it will only drive people further and further out to where you've stopped building. It will never stop. The wall must cover every single inch of the border that people are capable of walking.

What ever we end up paying for that will be worth the ROI of not paying for hospital bills of anchor babies, schooling of illegal and anchor children, government assistance, lawsuits, dealing with child camps, and the uncalculated costs of the negatives.

1) have you seen the cost estimates?
2) how do you count for the inches that cross the rio grande, topographically tricky areas, or cut off ranchers land? Do your research. I’m serious, don’t come back until you have looked this up.
3) they’ll get over or under it anyway. They have in San Diego where there are walls.
4) again, the cost. It costs less to fund anchor babies than to build every inch.
5) there will still be a secondary, illegal system of immigration due to overstays from those who FLY over the wall with legal papers.

I don’t mean to take you down. Trying to keep it civil, but man you are wrong. Go read some more, then come back with a better idea.
3)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I’m thinking of home too. However, we have a virtual wall, or we don’t. Or option c: we allow under 18 (16? I don’t know) to benefit regardless of status.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Walls work. Yes, there will be people digging under them and climbing over but slowing them down is good on its own and it will give border patrol time to get there and deport them back to Mexico.

There was a teen who just broke her back from jumping an 18 foot fence. She want going anywhere until Border Patrol came to get her.

So, then the existing walls work. Maybe shoring up some sections is a good idea.
But a WALL is impossible/not worth the cost.

I want to be sure you understand the return on investment. I know it’s basic but a lot of people even who own businesses don’t get it.
Business-wise, if hiring 4 more technicians, costs you $250k, but the business sees a bump of $350k in revenue, you should hire the techs.
If you have an investment idea that costs $1 mil, but over x period it will only bump up revenue by $800k, then don’t do it.

Bad roi to cover the cover the entirety of the S border, even if it were possible. Which it’s not because of Geography 101

What are you even talking about? If you only put in sections of border wall, it will only drive people further and further out to where you've stopped building. It will never stop. The wall must cover every single inch of the border that people are capable of walking.

What ever we end up paying for that will be worth the ROI of not paying for hospital bills of anchor babies, schooling of illegal and anchor children, government assistance, lawsuits, dealing with child camps, and the uncalculated costs of the negatives.

Anonymous wrote:I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

I agree with all the things you said, but those illegal immigrants bring kids, and that's a problem

I believe in a "virtual" wall: You should be unable to participate in our economy if you are not here legally. But that would mean increased scrutiny of employers - and people who use occasional help for cash. Given what we should be able to do with technology, I'm baffled.

I don't understand why this is hard since I have to I-9 every single person hired in my company.

Similarly, how can anyone rent a house, open a bank account, get a credit card, drivers license, etc. etc. if they are here illegally. I don't understand it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Agree.
No access to public goods unless child is legal status, permanent.
No citizenship by birth for kids of illegals or tourists.or may be any foreigner- they can all apply for greencard or residency status.
Fine on illegal employee and employer
No drivers licenses or IDs for non permanent residents
Tax or fee on cash remittances sent abroad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Walls work. Yes, there will be people digging under them and climbing over but slowing them down is good on its own and it will give border patrol time to get there and deport them back to Mexico.

There was a teen who just broke her back from jumping an 18 foot fence. She want going anywhere until Border Patrol came to get her.

So, then the existing walls work. Maybe shoring up some sections is a good idea.
But a WALL is impossible/not worth the cost.

I want to be sure you understand the return on investment. I know it’s basic but a lot of people even who own businesses don’t get it.
Business-wise, if hiring 4 more technicians, costs you $250k, but the business sees a bump of $350k in revenue, you should hire the techs.
If you have an investment idea that costs $1 mil, but over x period it will only bump up revenue by $800k, then don’t do it.

Bad roi to cover the cover the entirety of the S border, even if it were possible. Which it’s not because of Geography 101

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Walls work. Yes, there will be people digging under them and climbing over but slowing them down is good on its own and it will give border patrol time to get there and deport them back to Mexico.

There was a teen who just broke her back from jumping an 18 foot fence. She want going anywhere until Border Patrol came to get her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

That’s something many people can agree on.

Can we all just discount the wall, however? Can we ALL agree on that? Something called return on investment. For the cost, it will have little effect on the second system of immigration.

Anonymous wrote:More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

You may not be able to eliminate the illegal system but you CAN pass laws to make it massively unattractive. If being here illegally means no work, no education for the kids, no access to basic services, then you'll see it dwindle. That's my opinion.

More of my summary from Reihan Salam:
-as for illegal immigration, what we really have is TWO systems for entering. We label them legal and illegal. Some people would say we have a legal system and ‘everything else,’ and “they should go through the legal system!!” But it truly is two fully fledged systems. This is the reality.

I’ll again leave it as this point, because this point is a massive crux. It’s my opinion, and perhaps his, that you’ll never stop the illegal system. Impossible. The wall stinks. Limited walls and patrolling makes sense. You’ll limit the illegal system, but the wall still doesn’t stop the system. Everify does. Tighter employment controls, especially punishment for companies who knowingly participate in the illegal system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Np here. I have been meaning to read a new book on this subject, maybe some others here have already?

Reihan Salam’s Melting Pot or Civil War. And under the title: a son of immigrants makes the case against open borders.

Having read his articles, I believe he would have a very thorough and fair analysis to offer. I’m interested to see what he says, just haven’t gotten my hands on a copy yet while I have a pile of other books to read.

Again, most liberals are not for open borders.

Mmkay fine. It’s a book title. I just read the amazon sample, and I think you would jump to conclusions by tossing what he has to say aside. He isn’t 100% focused on (being against) open borders for the whole book.

I bet you’d have common ideas.

PP here again to say that, as mentioned above I read the sample, and since then I have also found several interviews with Salam discussing his book.
You should read and listen yourself but i want to summarize the points and logical path I feel he’s taking. (My impression of it)
-when we start by talking about our humanity, that’s great...but it’s not why we bring new residents in. If that were the case, we would consider that a survey taken around the world estimates X number of people want to come to the US to make a better life.
-so then what are our other motivations? Workers. We recognize the value that many can bring to our economy. And this is true for all classes/industries of workers
-tangential thought he proposes, when it comes down to what class of workers any country wants...it’s all about what kind of economy you want. There’s no upside or downside to choosing educated Vs. labor-class. It’s all about what you want. And his theory (maybe not his alone) is that long-term, any economy will absorb the workers that arrive. Any economy wants to find use for the available people (*asterisk!: tech can disrupt this theory).
-so, a country/region can, by selecting which new residents arrive, select their niche/style of economy. Are we going to be high COL or medium COL? Or raise the standard of living or not, and so forth.
-getting back to the workers chosen to enter, he has thought a lot about it and feels strongly the US needs to be choosing entrants based on economics, not based on who has family here. Of course asylum and refugees will play a part of our overall policy, but is or should be a smaller part (than economic) of our immigration policy

I’m going to pause there because I think there is enough meat to discuss

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
BS. Most people deported by Obama while you looked elsewhere had no criminal record.

Even worse, over a million were parents of American children.

If you actually cared about immigrants, you would have spoken then.

Being a parent to a US-born child has never been grounds for staying in the US outside of getting sponsored by that said child (usually grown with independent means).

True.

But I think that was a moral point, not a legal one.

Anonymous wrote:
BS. Most people deported by Obama while you looked elsewhere had no criminal record.

Even worse, over a million were parents of American children.

If you actually cared about immigrants, you would have spoken then.

Being a parent to a US-born child has never been grounds for staying in the US outside of getting sponsored by that said child (usually grown with independent means).