Jump to content

Because Trump 2.0


Mr King

Recommended Posts

I must find myself in agreement to a small degree with Paul, I have long thought we needed a program where those who wanted to come work could come in legally, get a social security number (the amount of id theft I have investigated over the years due to illegals is staggering), be photographed, fingerprinted, etc. Also this would prevent some unscrupulous employers from cheating those workers. And I would propose that the program lasts for five years, then they return to their country, but get to the head of the line to return (which should be relatively easy).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stuart Galbraith

    2811

  • rmgill

    2508

  • DKTanker

    1814

  • Josh

    1673

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I must find myself in agreement to a small degree with Paul, I have long thought we needed a program where those who wanted to come work could come in legally, get a social security number (the amount of id theft I have investigated over the years due to illegals is staggering), be photographed, fingerprinted, etc. Also this would prevent some unscrupulous employers from cheating those workers. And I would propose that the program lasts for five years, then they return to their country, but get to the head of the line to return (which should be relatively easy).

We do have such programs already. There's even one specifically for Canadians and Mexicans.

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/employment/visas-canadian-mexican-nafta-professional-workers.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must find myself in agreement to a small degree with Paul, I have long thought we needed a program where those who wanted to come work could come in legally, get a social security number (the amount of id theft I have investigated over the years due to illegals is staggering), be photographed, fingerprinted, etc. Also this would prevent some unscrupulous employers from cheating those workers. And I would propose that the program lasts for five years, then they return to their country, but get to the head of the line to return (which should be relatively easy).

We have those programs, they do and have existed for decades. What Paul and the rest of the open border people want are NO borders with complete and unfettered access to every prospective Democratic voter possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I must find myself in agreement to a small degree with Paul, I have long thought we needed a program where those who wanted to come work could come in legally, get a social security number (the amount of id theft I have investigated over the years due to illegals is staggering), be photographed, fingerprinted, etc. Also this would prevent some unscrupulous employers from cheating those workers. And I would propose that the program lasts for five years, then they return to their country, but get to the head of the line to return (which should be relatively easy).

We do have such programs already. There's even one specifically for Canadians and Mexicans.

 

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/employment/visas-canadian-mexican-nafta-professional-workers.html

 

 

That's a program for professionals (requiring degrees for many of the jobs). Doesn't really apply to the majority of illegals that Trump's wall would target nor the jobs they get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The illegals are slave labor, without being slave labor, the employer has little/no interest.

 

I'm not completely against a work program, but historically, cheap labor has always stifled technical innovation, and any mechanism for citizenship is the path for complete destruction of this nation. The 1965 Immigration Law probably doomed it already, to be honest. S/F....Ken M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, it is time the rich nations of Europe had to take the responsibility for their own defense instead of depending on the US to do it for them.

 

The defence spending is a necessary, but no sufficient condition, due to the fractured nature of Europe. This is a structural weakness that sovereign European nation states are, in all likelihood, unable to solve. If the US gives up on Europe, the non-proliferation treaty will probably fall because no country alone is able to establish credible conventional deterrence with Russia, AND withstand nuclear blackmail at the same time.

 

Trump doesn't seem to mind the benefits that the NPT grants to the established nuclear powers, but I'm not sure if that's really the kind of future we all want to live in, especially if more characters like him enter the political stage ("Why do we have nukes if we don't plan using them?").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a program for professionals (requiring degrees for many of the jobs). Doesn't really apply to the majority of illegals that Trump's wall would target nor the jobs they get.

Those that Trump's wall would target? You mean the folks breaking long standing US Immigration law?

 

What an odd way for you to phrase that. Do you think we should have no border laws or just no border enforcement so that the law can be used perniciously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The illegals are slave labor, without being slave labor, the employer has little/no interest.

 

I'm not completely against a work program, but historically, cheap labor has always stifled technical innovation, and any mechanism for citizenship is the path for complete destruction of this nation. The 1965 Immigration Law probably doomed it already, to be honest. S/F....Ken M

No matter how you slice it, a path for citizenship for the people who have been there for sometime and have not been charged and convicted of serious offense is the only way to resolve the issue. Make it for people that have already been there for 10+ years. build the wall at the same time, crack down on newly arrived illegals, improve guest worker programs for the menial stuff. What you are doing is pushing everyone into the light where they have to be accounted, pay taxes and general act like normal citizens, that reduces downward pressure on wages, removes hidden money and levels the playing field. There is no political will to kick all the illegals out, to many heart wrenching stories in the making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. the IGB stood as example of what could be done, if one has the WILL to do so. it was in response to the folks that say " walls dont work" they do, now we dont need mines and barbed wire other things work. ask the E Germans.

Nonsense. The IGB worked because the state who build it wanted to keep its citizens *in* not others out. So people were actively discouraged (now, that sounds nice, doesn't it) to get the means to surmount the obstacles. Good luck trying to get Mexico to do that. I guess you'd rater initiate a prospering industry of wall crawling machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The illegals are slave labor, without being slave labor, the employer has little/no interest.

 

I'm not completely against a work program, but historically, cheap labor has always stifled technical innovation, and any mechanism for citizenship is the path for complete destruction of this nation. The 1965 Immigration Law probably doomed it already, to be honest. S/F....Ken M

 

That is one of things i do not get about he USA, why not simply go after the employers and not the employees. If hiring illegals becomes a risk and does not pay off, there are no jobs and less would come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. So NATO AWACS over non-combat friendly airspace = weeks of active bombing and combat over hostile territory? Thanks for the education.

 

Hey, you were the one who moved the goalpost from soldiers killed to attendance, by re-citing two examples I had previously made myself where the US was dragged into jobs the Europeans should have done. So thanks for supporting the point I made then; it just doesn't refute the one you were reacting to, that these examples can't be used to show that soldiers have died for the interests of others than their own country. Which, as noted, I find a dubious argument anyway, since except for rare cases like Iraq and Libya, interests largely align among allies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The illegals are slave labor, without being slave labor, the employer has little/no interest.

 

I'm not completely against a work program, but historically, cheap labor has always stifled technical innovation, and any mechanism for citizenship is the path for complete destruction of this nation. The 1965 Immigration Law probably doomed it already, to be honest. S/F....Ken M

 

That is one of things i do not get about he USA, why not simply go after the employers and not the employees. If hiring illegals becomes a risk and does not pay off, there are no jobs and less would come.

 

 

Business interests (Regardless of party affiliation) make sure it doesn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dewittross.com/news-education/posts/2018/04/05/employers-at-increased-risk-for-9-audits-in-2018

http://www.visalaw.com/employer-compliance-i-9-general-concepts/

http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/e-verify-talking-points

https://www.workforce.com/2018/01/15/raid-7-elevens-stark-lesson-9-immigration-compliance/

  • Make sure your company’s Forms I-9 are in order by conducting an internal audit using outside legal counsel.
  • Train your team on proper completion of the Form I-9. Limit the number of individuals completing the form to a primary and back up, when possible.
  • Have written policies and procedures outlining Form I-9 completion, maintenance and disposal of the forms.
  • Have a plan in place to respond to a visit by ICE agents regardless of whether it is a raid or a “friendly visit” that results only in the issuance of a NOI. This means clearly marking non-public areas of your workplace and, short of a valid warrant to search and seize, ensuring that agents are escorted to a conference room or other similar public space while a manager or supervisor is called to accept service of the NOI.
    If you are the subject of a government investigation do not try to go it alone as the fines can quickly add up. Call outside counsel knowledgeable in the area of immigration-related worksite enforcement. All too often I see employers turning over too much documentation related to the Forms I-9, thereby potentially increasing their exposure and ultimately liability; as well as too readily agreeing to the fines imposed in a Notice of Intent to Fine without challenging the basis or rationale for the fines, including the consideration of mitigating factors.

This list illustrates two reasons why the system is broken. The first is that businesses have become essentially volunteer enforcement agents, incurring expenses (and time). Hoping that small businesses do a good job of enforcing federal immigration law is retarded. There is no shortage of small businesses which maintain financial and other records in a shoebox. Second, as soon as fines are involved, law enforcement agents become revenue agents. Which means they go after folks who can't afford to fight back, instead of those who flaunt their lawbreaking.

 

http://www.city-data.com/forum/illegal-immigration/2805116-how-illegal-immigrants-get-away-fake.html

1. The I9 form is not sent in to any government agency

2. The employer retains the I9 in their files. It is subject to govt review, but the rate of audit is very low.

Employers are also not expected to be experts in document review and verification. So as long as the documents are not obvious fakes, the I9 is a mere formality

From the USCIS website:

You are not required to be a document expert. You must accept documents that reasonably appear to be genuine and to relate to the person presenting them

All it takes to get past the I9 is a basic set of decent fake documents. To beat E-verify is a little harder but all you have to find is a set of valid documents and use the name and SSN that you know will match up in the database search. In my old neighborhood there was a cottage industry of American citizens earning a few extra bucks "loaning" their DL and SSN to undocumented immigrants so they could get past the E-verify screening.

 

As you can imagine, a big part of the problem is identity fraud, prevention of which is quite difficult because blue states want to help illegals. The REAL ID Act was initially intended to force states to use the drivers license to establish residency status.. But it appears to me there's a certain circularity involved. To get a D/L that qualifies as REAL ID, you'll need; birth certificate or passport, Social Security card, and proof of residency. All of which are routinely forged.

 

https://www.fletchertilton.com/1C2194/pdf/immigration-articles/Are%20You%20Employing%20Illegal%20Aliens.pdf

 

Fines for failure to comply with the employment verification system, i.e. paperwork violations, range from $100 to $1,100 per employee. Fines for
employment of unauthorized aliens are substantially higher and range between $250 and $11,000 per unauthorized alien. They may also include criminal charges being brought against the employer.

 

The laws etc. are there to punish employers, but the system was designed to fail. And note how many documents talk about consequences to employers, and almost none to employees who have committed identity fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/technolog/odds-someone-else-has-your-ssn-one-7-6C10406347

What are the odds someone else has used your Social Security number? One in 7.

 

That's the stunning conclusion of a San Diego company's analysis of 290 million Social Security numbers, which found that 40 million of them have been attached to more than one name. The study, conducted by the fraud-fighting firm ID Analytics, is the first of its kind that's been made available to the public.

 

We first wrote about the problem of "SSN-only" identity theft five years ago, and estimated that millions of Americans were on the "secret list of identity theft victims" whose SSNs had been misappropriated by an imposter to obtain work or credit.

 

The IRS often knows when this happens, when the imposter pays taxes. The Social Security Administration knows, too, for the same reason. And the nation's credit bureaus usually know, because the imposter often ends up applying for some form of credit. Plenty of financial institutions also have access to this information.

 

But no one is telling you. In short, all these government agencies and financial firms don't think you have a right to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://americanmind.org/features/thinking-about-thinking-about-trump/the-breaking-of-the-never-trump-mind/

 

This essay kind of wanders around, but it makes a couple of good points. One, that Trump was the beneficiary, not the cause, of the big divide in the Republican Party. Two, the Acela Conservatives are emotionally much closer to the AOC crowd than the Bass Pro Shops crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Not really. the IGB stood as example of what could be done, if one has the WILL to do so. it was in response to the folks that say " walls dont work" they do, now we dont need mines and barbed wire other things work. ask the E Germans.

Nonsense. The IGB worked because the state who build it wanted to keep its citizens *in* not others out. So people were actively discouraged (now, that sounds nice, doesn't it) to get the means to surmount the obstacles. Good luck trying to get Mexico to do that. I guess you'd rater initiate a prospering industry of wall crawling machines.

 

The IGB worked so well because lethal force backed it up. If you give Border Control the authority to shoot on sight, you don't need to build a wall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not really. the IGB stood as example of what could be done, if one has the WILL to do so. it was in response to the folks that say " walls dont work" they do, now we dont need mines and barbed wire other things work. ask the E Germans.

Nonsense. The IGB worked because the state who build it wanted to keep its citizens *in* not others out. So people were actively discouraged (now, that sounds nice, doesn't it) to get the means to surmount the obstacles. Good luck trying to get Mexico to do that. I guess you'd rater initiate a prospering industry of wall crawling machines.

 

The IGB worked so well because lethal force backed it up. If you give Border Control the authority to shoot on sight, you don't need to build a wall.

 

 

The number of people who have died crossing the desert "no mans land" suggests that is not so. The problem is the prosperity gradient is so high, nothing will stop the flow. You can, at best, reduce it. Even the IGB had folks cross it successfully. The prosperity gradient there was of comparable scale. What needs to happen, is those who would come cross the border need to have the pressure to cross dropped - preferably by improving the standard of living and level of prosperity of the place of origin, rather than by reducing the standard of living and level of prosperity of the destination. So long as there is little/no hope of a better life where they are, they will risk everything to cross the border. Because even a 1% chance of survival and entry into the "land of opportunity" is better than the no hope where they are.

 

This is not, at root, a US problem - this is a central and south american problem. To the extent that is IS a US problem, is only insofar as the peoples are fleeing and making it into a US problem. If they want the US to fix it, we can. It will involve replacing the governments in the countries of origins. That's not going to happen, because those are not our countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IGB worked so well because lethal force backed it up. If you give Border Control the authority to shoot on sight, you don't need to build a wall.

 

And yet even with the "shoot on sight" order they had a wall and or in most cases double lines of fencing. Which do you suppose was the redundancy, the wall or the shoot on sight order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hardly a proponent of using force at the border or the proposed wall. I agree it the source problem is poor economies further south, however I disagree that the US can't do anything to change the incentive: they can crack down on employers that use illegals. We also could have a migrant labor status or legal resident status that allowed them to cross and be tracked and appropriately taxed but didn't afford them the benefits a full citizen. I don't think immigrants/migrants/refugees would turn that down so long as they still got employment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The IGB worked so well because lethal force backed it up. If you give Border Control the authority to shoot on sight, you don't need to build a wall.

 

And yet even with the "shoot on sight" order they had a wall and or in most cases double lines of fencing. Which do you suppose was the redundancy, the wall or the shoot on sight order?

 

 

The fence. In the end the fence was only a means to activate the booby traps after you passed the 5km restricted zone, the 0,5-1km wide direct border zone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-70. Did I mention the guard towers and bunkers roughly every 250m?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more to the wall than just illegals. It's also organized crime movement across the border by the various cartels. Restricting that is also in the interest of the US.

 

How many law enforcement people do you need on this forum personally expressing how awful the Mexican cartels are? Isn't one enough?

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The IGB worked so well because lethal force backed it up. If you give Border Control the authority to shoot on sight, you don't need to build a wall.

 

And yet even with the "shoot on sight" order they had a wall and or in most cases double lines of fencing. Which do you suppose was the redundancy, the wall or the shoot on sight order?

 

 

The fence. In the end the fence was only a means to activate the booby traps after you passed the 5km restricted zone, the 0,5-1km wide direct border zone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-70. Did I mention the guard towers and bunkers roughly every 250m?

 

Did I mention I patrolled the IGB for 10 years? Did I mention the mines were removed from the "death" strip along with the "booby" traps on the fence itself, prior to my 10 year experience of border patrolling? Nor were all the bunkers and towers manned all day every day. What probably dissuaded many, if not most, individuals wasn't the personal cost of failure, but the devastating cost to family members and friends if the attempt was successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...