It's not that there's anything wrong with proper and thoroughly controlled immigration procedures. It's that this is clearly a red herring, a scapegoat issue that is a waste of our national time, dignity, and attention.

Illegal immigration didn't take the rust belt's manufacturing jobs, inevitable globalization and the US's increasing value as a service economy did. It didn't cause the crime that Trumpers are purportedly afraid of, and all relevant statistics show that is in fact a double-lie, since crime is trending down. It didn't depress wages, decades of Republican-framed economics favoring the top earners did. It's a wedge issue, a divisive distraction to foment support and direct anger, to appeal to xenophobic tribal tendencies since it's just too much damn work to actually think of long term solutions to our problems.

Further, it abuses otherwise peaceful people. I'm sure some of them do deserve to be deported back, as would be done pre-Trump under normal ICE procedure. But it's inhuman to, e.g., take the people whose parents brought them here as children, grew up here, spent their whole lives here, have never have known Mexico, and just put em on a bus and drop them off across the border. And more than cruel, it's also a genuine waste of time, because it doesn't solve a single thing.

The fact that we're even having this conversation is a failure in my opinion, because it means that this is now framed as a reasonable discussion - meaning we're well past the looking glass, taking this seriously when in fact it has always been, at all relevant times in the campaign and now, a false premise leading to a false conclusion.

It is illegal, but that's why America has cheap food and why small business can survive. California is the 8th(?) largest economy in the world for a reason- and a huge part of that is illegal immigrants doing shot jobs for low wages.

And even if you talk about computer programmers- the illegals are the people that form the foundations of their lifestyle. If you send all the illegals back then the California, and hence, American economy will crash. Hard.

I don't think it's even a question of racism. It's a question of ignorance of how the American economy works. Basically the Mexicans replaced the Japanese for picking food after WW2. The Mexicans are basically spartan helots.

And it's really not fair to Mexico. We destabilize the region with our drug policies and basically encourage them to come over here in order to work somewhere stable then we complain about it.

There's something to be said for having an actual policy that tracks and addresses this- but "sending the illegals back" just hurts agriculture and small business. If Americans are willing to pay at least x2 to x3 times the price for food- go for it. Maybe that will solve the obesity epidemic.

You can argue automation, but we aren't there yet really where a machine can prep food cheaper than below minimium wage. Ie there are automated egg crackers but they can't put preform of 3 below min wage workers yet.

There are a number of differences between helots and Mexicans. I hear what you're saying, but hyperbole. For instance, Mexicans have cups. Helots had to drink out of a rolled-up newspaper.

I work daily with programmers here from other countries. They're all great people and they are here legally. Why not enforce the law and allow room for someone from another country to come here legally and start their own business doing those shot jobs in California.

You're misunderstanding mookie's point. The lifestyle of Silicon Valley programmers are only possible through the use of undocumented workers. American capitalism refuses slavery, but still expects work to get done that can only be afforded in a manner so cheap that the only viable option is the utilization of undocumented workers. Remove undocumented workers and the entire system collapses. America utilizes an unsustainable economic model. Undocumented immigrants are victims of this system; the slaves and the scapegoats. In going after undocumented immigrants you're ignoring the actual problem and making further victims of people who are already being taken advantage of.

having grown up in silicon valley, I can attest to the validity of this view.

By upholding the law and reforming immigration, would this not help those that are being taken advantage of? Silicon Valley makes enough money-they can afford to have their lawn done at minimum wage+. Maybe they need an adjustment to the real world and this would be part of a much needed wake up call.

It's not just Silicon Valley. It's America. If you want to fix the system, fix the system, but blaming undocumented workers and turning them into scapegoats, treating them like animals to be hunted down isn't helping them. It's not helping anybody but the rich and powerful who are taking advantage of the distraction.

I agree, hunting them down isn't helping.

But besides providing reliable, cheap labor, they make such convenient scapegoats for all of our wider socio-economic disparities and inequities. Blaming and persecuting the other is always easier than actually trying to fix the actual problem- and certainly politically expedient for the aspiring populist authoritarian.

I don't disagree with you, actually, but it would ripple through all America and the world economy. California is also an massive exporter and California pays a lot of tax to the red states (that's great actually) not to mention California provides a lot of food throughout America.

Silicon Valley CAN afford it. There are parts of America that really can't.

And that's where it starts getting overly complex (beyond human understanding)

At times I think we're glorified ants.

Perhaps a middle way through this could be to attack the low wages these people are paid?

Yes a country does have the right to control borders, allocate immigration numbers and so on. With a bit of luck that will be done with a healthy dollop of self interest and some sense of humanity. To the extent that illegals are living and working in an area they are contributing to that areas share of gdp. They are adding value via work and contributing to final demand via consumption. Multipliers are real. More folks doing useful work in an area - regardless of immigration status - is probably a positive for that economy. If the illegal labourers would like to earn more to increase consumption, and for most in low income brackets that is the case, there is a pretty solid chance that moving them up to minimum wage levels will contribute further to that regions gdp (at the cost of some of them losing their jobs as the marginal calculations shift for those buying labour).

So, a set of laws that make it a minor bad to hire an illegal - bad person!, have a small fine - but make the cost of hiring an illegal and paying them less than minimum wage significant - off to chokey with you, plantation master! - might deliver some solid benefits, address claims of the 'they are taking our jobs' variety, and capture the benefits of both the labour and consumption provided by these groups.

I often chuckle at how quickly free-market ideologues shit their pants at the thought that labour, a classical production factor, might be allowed to move as freely as the goods and services they insist they should be allowed to trade freely no matter what. All those econ 101 models that show just how glorious free and untrammeled trade is do include labour as a freely traded input. Restrict that flow and the models fall apart.

I think that's easier to swallow for America than Universal basic income.

Because you'd have to pay them minimium wage. I guess what I'm getting at is that the savings go to small business and large corporations. And this has a ripple effect that would go through industries like computer programming. I mean look at education in the Bay Area. Teachers literally can't afford to live there. A lot of the immigrant programmers live as multiple people in a room to get by. Raising the price of food would be extremely disruptive. Legalized registered immigration would de facto do that even with automation I think. I know a couple guys that run food services and their profits come from underpaying staff. And they have a kind of visa that covers his employees- , He has to charge three times the price of what ever cost his food is. One third the cost of material, one third the cost is overhead, and one third where profit comes in. I guess my over arching point, is that illegal immigration benefits the entire ecosystem. I think you could more strictly regulate aspects of the system, but it's a complex economic ecosystem.

Indeed but companies don't just take advantage of their labor, they seek it out.

Tyson got caught. But other firms advertise across the border promising jobs. Illegal immigrants are exploited, and at this point they represent a well settled and large part of their community. If this issue wasn't tainted by racism, we'd see the administration crack down on companies and raid offices. We don't though. These people are happily exploited for their labor, and then scapegoated for their political worth.

“Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals the fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex. And in such as world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.”
― Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States

Dan Carlin's Hard Core Histoey has a great blurb somewhere on how helots were treated in Sparta and how they were kept down as a class of people with laws that specifically enabled abuse and culling against them- and it sounds irritating modern if you think about how law enforcement works in this country.

Yeah, that's basically what Michelle Alexander's New Jim Crow illustrates to a ragefully convincing degree.

True. And let's not forget that the main driver of the Spartan warrior culture was to maintain 'peace' at home. With 20 slaves to each Spartan it was essential to be able to credibly demonstrate a capacity and willingness to attack and kill any within the slave population that might agitate for change. That this afforded them prowess on the battlefields away from home was largely a by product.

So from this distance it seems that the options for the U.S. boil down to something like:
1. normalise the work status of those working illegally and police the wages and conditions they receive, and punish those who underpay them
2. expel them somehow and endure the significant disruptions this would cause along with the longer-term negative impacts on growth or,
3. continue to have something that looks a lot like a slave class, avoid the disruption that expelling them would deliver, but have to deal with the social aspects of these arrangements.

If someone is working, paying taxes, not victimizing anyone, and thereby contributing to society then what difference does it make whether they're here legally or not? The only reason they're 'illegal' is because of a legal immigration/guest worker system that's inadequate to the task.

In order to pay taxes wouldn't they have to be using a ss#. If so, someones a victim.

I stand corrected.

I don't think you're wrong. It can fuck over people and create massive paperwork. There are negative aspect to it.

And also- a lot of times these guys get surgery and ditch the bill and all this stuff gets tacked onto medical bills in general to cover these guys.

But part of that is because these guys work hard and have a shit diet (can't afford the money and time for good food) and then their health suffers. Their jobs don't pay insurance.

That's why at the end of the day Obama care lowers prices for everyone- because even though some rates go up, the costs do t have to cover the uninsured. Which is nasty because hospital bills are inflated because they assume insurance is covering it.

Disclosure: I have friends in surgery and insurance and the insurance one makes waaaaay more than the doctor ironically.

Wrong. Income taxes can be paid via employer payroll deductions without a SS#.
Some do use stolen SS#s, some use ITINs. Some pay property taxes, all pay sales taxes. Depending on whose estimate you use, illegal immigrants pay between $7-12 billion in taxes each year.

When I practiced immigration law, most who paid did not use stolen SS. They had a valid SS illegally obtained. That is, grease some palm down at the SS office and get a real card with a unique number issued by the government.

You probably have more insight into the nuts and bolts of this than the rest of us. Were there any reasonable estimates of the share that paid in and those that did not pay in? Having paid in, were they able to access services, or was it a straight loss to them?

I have less insight on this particular issue that you would think since when people came to me they were in deportation proceedings and needed courtroom representation. The administrative nuts and bolts of entry and after trial was handled by others. The general rule, however, was that they could not access any services provided by the government other than food aid for children and emergency medical help. Most received what they needed via charitable organizations or from the general support of their immigrant community. None of them ( with the exception of Cubans) expected anyone to help them but were sincerely grateful for any help they received. Most would do whatever they could to pay their taxes, even if they had to come up with an underhanded way to do it since that was considered a lesser sin under some of the forms of relief from deportation available than it would be to have not paid taxes. In general, they would never see a penny of their SS contribution unless they later became a citizen. In that case, if they had used a valid SS number ( as a refugee with a pending asylum claim might have with work authorization or someone with a tax payer identification number), they might then recieved credit for what they had paid in.

Thanks. Good info, some good colour.

Cheers.

This is factually incorrect.

1) Sales tax.

2) Employer contributions.

3) ITIN.

4) Property Tax. If you rent, your landlord is paying this, but it's built into the cost of renting.

If the want to put money into my SS account it is ok with me.

Same here. If not for identity theft concerns I'd imagine plenty of citizens would be willing to 'lend out' their SS#'s to undocumented immigrants so they could more easily find work, pay taxes, and integrate into society.

I think those bug eyed greys should stay the fuck off our planet, leave our cattle alone, and stop with the anal probes

BUILD A CEILING!

People come to America to work. They are looking for an opportunity to live a decent life and to provide for their families. Immigration helps build out economy (more demand for products and more supply of labor).

Growing up in a diverse city, I have seen the good and the bad of immigration. There is a lot more good. I say, open the borders for more immigration, give immigrants easy access to bank accounts, and offer better services to help with language and employment barriers.

Perhaps an unpopular stance but mine is simple:

Either we agree that Mexicans have a historic access to California, Texas, and other places they have been from or we don't. I am personally okay with both ideas, in fact, I would even be okay with abolishing borders all together but one pipe dream at a time.

I believe that an argument must be made that we are a nation of immigrants, who came here because of religious persecution, economic opportunity, or political persecution. Clearly we can not simply throw people at Mexico or other Central or Latin American countries without consideration to these principles.

But I do think that yes, ultimately some people should be deported. I believe that people who knowingly hire "illegal" immigrants should be thrown in jail for both taking advantage of the immigrant and undermining American workers who would do the work for the right pay.

However, I think we need to make care that we don't spread poverty and misery into the world. If we send an "illegal" who does not even speak the native language of the country we send them to, how are we doing anything to live up to our ideals? There needs to be a real path to citizenship.

So, even though I am appalled by Donald Trump, and I will lend my voice and effort to opposing his brand of border security, I retain the stance that I am "on the fence" if you will.

Not a popular opinion, but everyone is welcome in my book. The ones that cause trouble? Deal with them. Not enough resources? Invent more. Where to draw the lines? Why lines? Why are we so two dimensional in these matters?

I have worked illegally in other countries, Mexico included. This is not solely an American problem. The current system used by first world countries is set up so that some MUST fail for others to thrive. That needs to change, IMO.

Fuck if I know. Hi all, how are you today?

Here's the thing: our current system of immigration is based on caps. X number of people from Y country can come in every year. However, the caps that we've set are absurdly low, in relation to the potential economic benefits. This is part of why I'm a huge proponent of immigration reform. Should immigrants be entering legally? Yes. So why do they enter illegally? Because we don't let them in. But our reasons for not letting them in are fairly weak.

So I guess my take is this: immigrants should enter the country legally, but currently our restrictions on immigration are too tight. If you allow more people in, then they don't have to enter illegally.

Don't just comment its racist-thats BS and its not racist.

In theory, it's not racist, and in your mind, it's not racist. But in application, it is. The politicians, voters, ICE, all know who is subject to arrest and deportation. That's why American citizens who are Latinos are subject to hassles by ICE, but William Shatner and Kiefer Sutherland are probably never going to be asked for their papers.

In other words, this is the US, of course it's racist.

Or Milo Yiannopoulos, and he's even a known provocateur.
But yeah, if you're brown, get outta town.

I've been going through this in my mind since november and have come to the conclusion that if the dumpster didn't overtly or subtlety invoke racism, he wouldn't have won. The GOP had the opportunity to push for a more moderate Kasich, and they didn't. He was purposefully marginalized. They knew the only way to win the white house is to cater to the uneducated american patriot, and the effort at the grass roots level grew during the "black" Obama administration. This is why the first two things he wants to accomplish is remove islam from america, and build the wall. The two platforms he ran his campaign on. This is a reaction to eight years of a black president. Liberals became complacent.

I honestly think that people should pay closer attention to the conservative right's voter base. The "movement" that the dumpster keeps referring to is white, christian, male supremacy. Originalists and constitutionalists think that this country was founded by white male christians, and that white patriarchy should remain in power. All you need to do is read Breitbart and the comments posted. Go to the links users post, and read some more. You will quickly come to the realization that racism is the only answer. Read some essays by Anton and Bannon, both of which are senior trump advisors. Both believe diversity is undesirable and causes all the problems the country faces today. Liberals need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Sure, law and order, go through the process legally. All others should be deported. Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any other president in recent history. This doesn't explain border patrol officers intimidating US passport holders with funny names, green card holders, or removing undocumented patients from hospitals and taken to detention centers. Nationalism in this case means white america first.

In the end, this country has approx 1 million undocumented workers. The US has a population of almost 320 million. One million is negligible, but ideology is what drives muslim bans and walling off a country that provides more good than bad, but that's irrelevant if you think a police state will rid the country of undesirables. This is not about immigrants breaking the law.

I am for shutting down the borders, not through a ridiculous wall but through well researched methods. However, I am also for getting rid of illegal immigrants by giving them a pathway to immigration and deporting real criminals (felons). Once everyone is here legally, we can keep providing significant legal pathways for immigration for anyone who wants to come here from mexico. We need to make it easy to enter legally, and hard enougth to enter illegally that no one will choose the illegal route.

I like for the law to work. It gives me a false sense of security. As such, the laws on the books should be enforced. That said, they shouldn't be enforced capriciously. In this case, I'd be in favor of a solution that recognized some principal of adverse possession. It's true we've invited illegal immigrants into this country to exploit as cheap labor. It's also true they come to make better lives for themselves any way they can, and more power to them. Split the baby and re-equilibrate while building a more functional system. Unfortunately, like the healthcare system, there is always going to be an ugly aspect to immigration. Someone is not going to get what they want.

There actually is a form of relief from deportation that has aspects of adverse possession. It is called cancellation of removal. If one is here 10 years, shows good moral character and extreme hardship to a qualifying relative ( citizen spouse, parent or child) if they were deported, they can stay. ( I had mentioned above the urge to pay taxes that many illegal aliens have, this is the form of relief from deportation that they most want to be able to show compliance for.) Back before IRAIRA changed the law, it was 7 years and the hardship could be to themselves. Unfortunately some judges defined hardship to themselves so loosely that what had usually meant being separated from everyone they knew or being removed to a place without adequate healthcare some times meant no longer being able to see a Yankees game live.

The law is harsh, but it is the law.

Don't like immigration laws as is, work to change them.
Until they are changed, if you break them, then suffer the consequences.