Discussion:
How Immigration Can Turn a State From Red To Blue
(too old to reply)
mg
2018-05-13 16:24:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
It's hard to get people to listen to you if they think you're going to
deport their grandmother.

---------------

"Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States

By Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia Posted on April 8, 2013, 1:42 pm

". . .Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the Republican predicament
best when he told the Washington Ideas Forum on November 15 that,
“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth,
on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their
grandmother. . . .

As we move into the congressional debate on immigration reform, we
should remember that the political shifts that have opened a space for
reform—grounded in demographic changes—were not a phenomenon that
debuted in 2012. These changes began in the mid-1990s, when
anti-immigrant politics in California helped turn the state reliably
blue.

And as our nation moves toward a point where by 2043 we will have no
clear racial or ethnic majority,11 other states such as Arizona,
Texas, North Carolina, and even Georgia are also reaching demographic
tipping points. Whether or not these states turn blue in the future
has a lot to do with how politicians in both parties act and what they
talk about on the subject of immigration reform.

In this issue brief we review the past, present, and future of
immigration politics, as well as the changing demographics in key
states. . . ."

CONCLUSION

Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in
this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won
332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas,
North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring
the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.

Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But
two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of
color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share
of the total voting population. . . .
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/04/08/59580/immigration-is-changing-the-political-landscape-in-key-states/




----------------------------------
"There is, of course, a legitimate
argument for some limitation upon
immigration. We no longer need
settlers for virgin lands, and our
economy is expanding more slowly
than in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century"
-- JFK, A Nation of Immigrants, 1964
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-13 16:34:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
It's hard to get people to listen to you if they think you're going to
deport their grandmother.
---------------
"Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States
By Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia Posted on April 8, 2013, 1:42 pm
". . .Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the Republican predicament
best when he told the Washington Ideas Forum on November 15 that,
“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth,
on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their
grandmother. . . .
As we move into the congressional debate on immigration reform, we
should remember that the political shifts that have opened a space for
reform—grounded in demographic changes—were not a phenomenon that
debuted in 2012. These changes began in the mid-1990s, when
anti-immigrant politics in California helped turn the state reliably
blue.
And as our nation moves toward a point where by 2043 we will have no
clear racial or ethnic majority,11 other states such as Arizona,
Texas, North Carolina, and even Georgia are also reaching demographic
tipping points. Whether or not these states turn blue in the future
has a lot to do with how politicians in both parties act and what they
talk about on the subject of immigration reform.
In this issue brief we review the past, present, and future of
immigration politics, as well as the changing demographics in key
states. . . ."
CONCLUSION
Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in
this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won
332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas,
North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring
the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.
Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But
two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of
color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share
of the total voting population. . . .
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/04/08/59580/immigration-is-changing-the-political-landscape-in-key-states/
Perhaps the GOP shouldn't be so hostile to Latino immigrants?
mg
2018-05-13 18:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 13 May 2018 09:34:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
It's hard to get people to listen to you if they think you're going to
deport their grandmother.
---------------
"Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States
By Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia Posted on April 8, 2013, 1:42 pm
". . .Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the Republican predicament
best when he told the Washington Ideas Forum on November 15 that,
“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth,
on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their
grandmother. . . .
As we move into the congressional debate on immigration reform, we
should remember that the political shifts that have opened a space for
reform—grounded in demographic changes—were not a phenomenon that
debuted in 2012. These changes began in the mid-1990s, when
anti-immigrant politics in California helped turn the state reliably
blue.
And as our nation moves toward a point where by 2043 we will have no
clear racial or ethnic majority,11 other states such as Arizona,
Texas, North Carolina, and even Georgia are also reaching demographic
tipping points. Whether or not these states turn blue in the future
has a lot to do with how politicians in both parties act and what they
talk about on the subject of immigration reform.
In this issue brief we review the past, present, and future of
immigration politics, as well as the changing demographics in key
states. . . ."
CONCLUSION
Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in
this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won
332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas,
North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring
the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.
Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But
two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of
color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share
of the total voting population. . . .
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/04/08/59580/immigration-is-changing-the-political-landscape-in-key-states/
Perhaps the GOP shouldn't be so hostile to Latino immigrants?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Pugs and the Dems do eventually become
engaged in a bidding war for the immigrant vote.

Actually, I suppose they are already in competition in Florida for the
Cuban immigrant vote. Come to think of it, who can forget all the
drama surrounding the 2000 election and the Florida vote. Did the
relatively small Cuban-American vote decide the outcome of the 2000
presidential election? Here's an article that says Gore got less than
20% of the Cuban-American vote:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/05/elian-gonzalez-defeated-al-gore/377714/
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-13 19:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 13 May 2018 09:34:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
It's hard to get people to listen to you if they think you're going to
deport their grandmother.
---------------
"Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States
By Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia Posted on April 8, 2013, 1:42 pm
". . .Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the Republican predicament
best when he told the Washington Ideas Forum on November 15 that,
“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth,
on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their
grandmother. . . .
As we move into the congressional debate on immigration reform, we
should remember that the political shifts that have opened a space for
reform—grounded in demographic changes—were not a phenomenon that
debuted in 2012. These changes began in the mid-1990s, when
anti-immigrant politics in California helped turn the state reliably
blue.
And as our nation moves toward a point where by 2043 we will have no
clear racial or ethnic majority,11 other states such as Arizona,
Texas, North Carolina, and even Georgia are also reaching demographic
tipping points. Whether or not these states turn blue in the future
has a lot to do with how politicians in both parties act and what they
talk about on the subject of immigration reform.
In this issue brief we review the past, present, and future of
immigration politics, as well as the changing demographics in key
states. . . ."
CONCLUSION
Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in
this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won
332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas,
North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring
the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.
Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But
two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of
color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share
of the total voting population. . . .
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/04/08/59580/immigration-is-changing-the-political-landscape-in-key-states/
Perhaps the GOP shouldn't be so hostile to Latino immigrants?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Pugs and the Dems do eventually become
engaged in a bidding war for the immigrant vote.
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Post by mg
Actually, I suppose they are already in competition in Florida for the
Cuban immigrant vote. Come to think of it, who can forget all the
drama surrounding the 2000 election and the Florida vote. Did the
relatively small Cuban-American vote decide the outcome of the 2000
presidential election? Here's an article that says Gore got less than
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/05/elian-gonzalez-defeated-al-gore/377714/
El Castor
2018-05-14 17:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
On Sun, 13 May 2018 09:34:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
It's hard to get people to listen to you if they think you're going to
deport their grandmother.
---------------
"Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States
By Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia Posted on April 8, 2013, 1:42 pm
". . .Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the Republican predicament
best when he told the Washington Ideas Forum on November 15 that,
“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth,
on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their
grandmother. . . .
As we move into the congressional debate on immigration reform, we
should remember that the political shifts that have opened a space for
reform—grounded in demographic changes—were not a phenomenon that
debuted in 2012. These changes began in the mid-1990s, when
anti-immigrant politics in California helped turn the state reliably
blue.
And as our nation moves toward a point where by 2043 we will have no
clear racial or ethnic majority,11 other states such as Arizona,
Texas, North Carolina, and even Georgia are also reaching demographic
tipping points. Whether or not these states turn blue in the future
has a lot to do with how politicians in both parties act and what they
talk about on the subject of immigration reform.
In this issue brief we review the past, present, and future of
immigration politics, as well as the changing demographics in key
states. . . ."
CONCLUSION
Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in
this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won
332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas,
North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring
the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.
Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But
two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of
color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share
of the total voting population. . . .
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/04/08/59580/immigration-is-changing-the-political-landscape-in-key-states/
Perhaps the GOP shouldn't be so hostile to Latino immigrants?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Pugs and the Dems do eventually become
engaged in a bidding war for the immigrant vote.
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-14 18:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
El Castor
2018-05-14 19:10:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-14 20:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
El Castor
2018-05-15 00:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:05:59 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
OK, that seems reasonable, but so does catch and release, until you
realize that most never show up for a court date after being released.
islander
2018-05-15 13:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:05:59 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
OK, that seems reasonable, but so does catch and release, until you
realize that most never show up for a court date after being released.
Another Trump lie. There is a good article about "catch and release" by
VOX which describes why it is more complicated than campaign slogans.
The article includes the following:
"In fiscal year 2017, the last year for which data is available, about
40,000 deportation orders were issued in absentia — that is, to
immigrants who hadn’t shown up. Most immigrants, however, did show up to
their court dates; 60,000 immigrants showed up only to get deported.
Thousands more actually won their cases, and then there are who knows
how many immigrants who showed up to ask for (and get) more time to put
their cases together."
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17190090/catch-release-loopholes-border-immigrants-trump

There are laws, both US and international, that protect certain classes
of immigrants, especially children and those requesting asylum. A
lawyer friend of mine volunteers his time in an attempt to protect the
rights of these people in what is a blatantly overloaded system that has
been instructed to deport as many applicants as possible. The few that
are actually granted asylum depend upon a system that keeps them in the
courts for years.

Congress could change the US laws, but the Republican Congress would
rather snipe from the sidelines than attempt to do anything
constructive. This is so obviously a Republican strategy that people
are beginning to notice.
El Castor
2018-05-15 17:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:05:59 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
OK, that seems reasonable, but so does catch and release, until you
realize that most never show up for a court date after being released.
Another Trump lie. There is a good article about "catch and release" by
VOX which describes why it is more complicated than campaign slogans.
"In fiscal year 2017, the last year for which data is available, about
40,000 deportation orders were issued in absentia — that is, to
immigrants who hadn’t shown up. Most immigrants, however, did show up to
their court dates; 60,000 immigrants showed up only to get deported.
Thousands more actually won their cases, and then there are who knows
how many immigrants who showed up to ask for (and get) more time to put
their cases together."
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17190090/catch-release-loopholes-border-immigrants-trump
There are laws, both US and international, that protect certain classes
of immigrants, especially children and those requesting asylum. A
lawyer friend of mine volunteers his time in an attempt to protect the
rights of these people in what is a blatantly overloaded system that has
been instructed to deport as many applicants as possible. The few that
are actually granted asylum depend upon a system that keeps them in the
courts for years.
Congress could change the US laws, but the Republican Congress would
rather snipe from the sidelines than attempt to do anything
constructive. This is so obviously a Republican strategy that people
are beginning to notice.
"Table 1 shows the shocking number of cases on ICE's docket — 872,000
as of the end of the 2013 fiscal year — who had received final orders
of removal, but who had not yet departed. Cases are counted in this
category after all due process has been exhausted. There are therefore
hundreds of thousands of alien fugitives in the United States right
now who have been ordered removed and ignored those orders. While a
few thousand of these are aliens who cannot be removed because they
refuse to cooperate in obtaining travel documents or their home
countries will not accept them, the vast majority are illegal aliens
who have absconded from immigration hearings, an offense similar to
contempt of court. The administration has indicated it is considering
an executive action to forbid ICE from taking action against these
individuals, rationalizing that these are mere immigration offenses."
https://cis.org/Catch-and-Release
islander
2018-05-16 01:14:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 13:05:59 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
OK, that seems reasonable, but so does catch and release, until you
realize that most never show up for a court date after being released.
Another Trump lie. There is a good article about "catch and release" by
VOX which describes why it is more complicated than campaign slogans.
"In fiscal year 2017, the last year for which data is available, about
40,000 deportation orders were issued in absentia — that is, to
immigrants who hadn’t shown up. Most immigrants, however, did show up to
their court dates; 60,000 immigrants showed up only to get deported.
Thousands more actually won their cases, and then there are who knows
how many immigrants who showed up to ask for (and get) more time to put
their cases together."
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/9/17190090/catch-release-loopholes-border-immigrants-trump
There are laws, both US and international, that protect certain classes
of immigrants, especially children and those requesting asylum. A
lawyer friend of mine volunteers his time in an attempt to protect the
rights of these people in what is a blatantly overloaded system that has
been instructed to deport as many applicants as possible. The few that
are actually granted asylum depend upon a system that keeps them in the
courts for years.
Congress could change the US laws, but the Republican Congress would
rather snipe from the sidelines than attempt to do anything
constructive. This is so obviously a Republican strategy that people
are beginning to notice.
"Table 1 shows the shocking number of cases on ICE's docket — 872,000
as of the end of the 2013 fiscal year — who had received final orders
of removal, but who had not yet departed. Cases are counted in this
category after all due process has been exhausted. There are therefore
hundreds of thousands of alien fugitives in the United States right
now who have been ordered removed and ignored those orders. While a
few thousand of these are aliens who cannot be removed because they
refuse to cooperate in obtaining travel documents or their home
countries will not accept them, the vast majority are illegal aliens
who have absconded from immigration hearings, an offense similar to
contempt of court. The administration has indicated it is considering
an executive action to forbid ICE from taking action against these
individuals, rationalizing that these are mere immigration offenses."
https://cis.org/Catch-and-Release
Out of an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants, I'm not
surprised that there are 872,000 on ICE's docket. So much for Romney's
idea that they will voluntarily leave!
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-15 02:48:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.

"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-15 03:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
I think it is good idea. However, it's implementation requires an
amnesty for those already here illegally. Otherwise, it would force
those already here to stop working. So, California did the right thing.
Post by b***@gmail.com
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
islander
2018-05-15 14:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.

I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
El Castor
2018-05-15 17:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
islander
2018-05-16 01:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.

PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/

You can find the latest data by state at:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/

The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
El Castor
2018-05-18 05:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
islander
2018-05-18 19:36:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
El Castor
2018-05-18 21:18:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
islander
2018-05-19 13:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
El Castor
2018-05-19 22:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
islander
2018-05-20 14:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
El Castor
2018-05-20 20:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
islander
2018-05-21 19:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
El Castor
2018-05-21 20:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
islander
2018-05-22 01:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
El Castor
2018-05-22 08:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
islander
2018-05-22 12:49:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
That does not equate to throwing the borders open to all comers. It was
the Republicans in the House that refused to pass comprehensive
immigration reform in 2013 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act). It passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to
32. No Democrats voted against it. Significantly, this bill would have
increased border security and tightened laws. Read it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text

Don't you think that would have been a lot better than a stupid wall?
El Castor
2018-05-22 20:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
That does not equate to throwing the borders open to all comers. It was
the Republicans in the House that refused to pass comprehensive
immigration reform in 2013 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act). It passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to
32. No Democrats voted against it. Significantly, this bill would have
increased border security and tightened laws. Read it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
I don't believe for a minute that Democrats supported genuinely
effective legislation.
Post by islander
Don't you think that would have been a lot better than a stupid wall?
No.
islander
2018-05-24 16:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
That does not equate to throwing the borders open to all comers. It was
the Republicans in the House that refused to pass comprehensive
immigration reform in 2013 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act). It passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to
32. No Democrats voted against it. Significantly, this bill would have
increased border security and tightened laws. Read it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
I don't believe for a minute that Democrats supported genuinely
effective legislation.
I gather that you have not read the bill. Exactly what do you feel is
not genuinely effective? It is not perfect, but would have definitely
been an improvement over what we have. Unfortunately the House was not
given the chance to even debate it, much less approve it. Ryan
prevented it from going to the floor where it would have likely passed.
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Don't you think that would have been a lot better than a stupid wall?
No.
El Castor
2018-05-25 06:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
That does not equate to throwing the borders open to all comers. It was
the Republicans in the House that refused to pass comprehensive
immigration reform in 2013 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act). It passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to
32. No Democrats voted against it. Significantly, this bill would have
increased border security and tightened laws. Read it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
I don't believe for a minute that Democrats supported genuinely
effective legislation.
I gather that you have not read the bill. Exactly what do you feel is
not genuinely effective? It is not perfect, but would have definitely
been an improvement over what we have. Unfortunately the House was not
given the chance to even debate it, much less approve it. Ryan
prevented it from going to the floor where it would have likely passed.
Sorry, but sealing the borders is just not in the liberal playbook,
and never will be. Just the way it is.
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Don't you think that would have been a lot better than a stupid wall?
No.
islander
2018-05-25 13:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
The world is full of problems. We can't solve them all. We have enough
of our own.
Are the unique problems faced by Latinos in California not "our" problems?
They are much more mine than yours.
Perhaps, but a recent experience here shows that we are not as isolated
as you assume. We contracted to have new carpeting installed in a
rental property before putting it on the market. The installer
complained that half his crew refused to come to the island out of fear
of ICE. That was only an inconvenience for us, but speaks to the
broader problem of "official" discrimination against Latinos. One man
who had lived here for decades was seized at the ferry landing and
threatened with expulsion. His family didn't know what had happened to
him, only that he had disappeared. The folks here joined forces to
provide him with legal assistance, but it was a horrible experience for
him and his family. Our national immigration policy is getting worse
and I cannot blame people for reacting (and voting).
Legal immigrants have nothing to fear. Try being an illegal immigrant
anywhere, and you will find yourself looking over your shoulder. Could
you just hop over to Pender Island and take up residence? Couldn't
recommend it. Mexico would not tolerate you -- unless you were legal.
This is nothing new. My wife's Italian mother came over here legally
pre-WWII. She plucked chickens for a poultry company in North Beach.
ICE (or whatever it was called then) would come knocking and all the
illegal puckers would run up to the roof -- while my M-I-L kept
plucking.
Nothing to fear? I disagree. People who look Latino have a great deal
to fear since ICE tends to act and ask questions later. Sometimes it
takes a great deal of effort and expense to restore the rights of legal
immigrants. ICE is out of control.
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
That does not equate to throwing the borders open to all comers. It was
the Republicans in the House that refused to pass comprehensive
immigration reform in 2013 (Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and
Immigration Modernization Act). It passed the Senate by a vote of 68 to
32. No Democrats voted against it. Significantly, this bill would have
increased border security and tightened laws. Read it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
I don't believe for a minute that Democrats supported genuinely
effective legislation.
I gather that you have not read the bill. Exactly what do you feel is
not genuinely effective? It is not perfect, but would have definitely
been an improvement over what we have. Unfortunately the House was not
given the chance to even debate it, much less approve it. Ryan
prevented it from going to the floor where it would have likely passed.
Sorry, but sealing the borders is just not in the liberal playbook,
and never will be. Just the way it is.
One of my favorite authors is Jonathan Haidt, a professor in social
psychology who has studied the reasons for irrational decision making
and its effects on politics. He makes an interesting case for what
happens when deeply seated feelings are confronted with facts. It is
well understood in what is called "moral dumbfounding" but the same
effect in politics could well be called "political dumbfounding." In
the face of facts, the argument is ultimately reduced to "I don't know
why I am right, I just know that I AM right."

You seem to drop into that way of thinking when your arguments fail.
Unfortunately, humans inherit that trait as a survival instinct. Not to
worry, it is pretty common.

Since you probably won't read Haidt's book, *The Righteous Mind,* here
he is in a TED talk describing his insight into liberal and conservative
thought. He is a good and entertaining speaker and you might be
surprised by his thinking.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Don't you think that would have been a lot better than a stupid wall?
No.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-22 14:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
El Castor
2018-05-22 20:11:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-22 21:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert! We don't and that is not what most liberals advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
How would you have voted on the bill islander posted:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-23 21:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
El Castor
2018-05-24 01:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-24 01:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
Here's a summary of the law:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

What say you?
El Castor
2018-05-24 07:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:30:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
What say you?
I don't believe it would be have been implemented in good faith, nor
would it have stopped illegal immigration. For me to be a believer
would require more than words on a piece of paper. It would require a
trust in the promises and good intentions of liberals. Liberals lack
any real desire to halt illegal and Muslim immigration, so the rest of
us elected Trump to force the issue. That, and the highest corporate
tax rate in the world, were why I voted for him. I have no desire to
see 11 or 12 million people uprooted and deported. It would be a
disaster, but control the borders first, and then we can discuss
amnesty.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-24 15:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:30:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
What say you?
I don't believe it would be have been implemented in good faith, nor
would it have stopped illegal immigration. For me to be a believer
would require more than words on a piece of paper.
The Gang of Eight bill was a liberal Trojan Horse? Amazing!
Post by El Castor
It would require a
trust in the promises and good intentions of liberals. Liberals lack
any real desire to halt illegal and Muslim immigration, so the rest of
us elected Trump to force the issue. That, and the highest corporate
tax rate in the world, were why I voted for him. I have no desire to
see 11 or 12 million people uprooted and deported. It would be a
disaster, but control the borders first, and then we can discuss
amnesty.
"We can discuss amnesty" sounds like amnesty will never happen and thus
is a non-starter.
El Castor
2018-05-25 07:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 24 May 2018 08:56:50 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:30:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
What say you?
I don't believe it would be have been implemented in good faith, nor
would it have stopped illegal immigration. For me to be a believer
would require more than words on a piece of paper.
The Gang of Eight bill was a liberal Trojan Horse? Amazing!
Not amazing -- reality.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
It would require a
trust in the promises and good intentions of liberals. Liberals lack
any real desire to halt illegal and Muslim immigration, so the rest of
us elected Trump to force the issue. That, and the highest corporate
tax rate in the world, were why I voted for him. I have no desire to
see 11 or 12 million people uprooted and deported. It would be a
disaster, but control the borders first, and then we can discuss
amnesty.
"We can discuss amnesty" sounds like amnesty will never happen and thus
is a non-starter.
Let Trump build his wall, end chain migration, eliminate catch &
release, and do something substantive about visa overstays, and I
would vote for amnesty. Around here a bush doesn't get trimmed, a
fence built, a roof shingled, or a cheese sandwich grilled without a
Latino at the helm. I recommend a movie -- A Day Without A Mexican.
islander
2018-05-24 16:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:30:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
What say you?
I don't believe it would be have been implemented in good faith, nor
would it have stopped illegal immigration. For me to be a believer
would require more than words on a piece of paper. It would require a
trust in the promises and good intentions of liberals. Liberals lack
any real desire to halt illegal and Muslim immigration, so the rest of
us elected Trump to force the issue. That, and the highest corporate
tax rate in the world, were why I voted for him. I have no desire to
see 11 or 12 million people uprooted and deported. It would be a
disaster, but control the borders first, and then we can discuss
amnesty.
This is a pretty transparent strategy. Controlling the borders without
being specific about exactly what that means is a way of avoiding
further discussion.
El Castor
2018-05-25 07:16:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:30:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
What say you?
I don't believe it would be have been implemented in good faith, nor
would it have stopped illegal immigration. For me to be a believer
would require more than words on a piece of paper. It would require a
trust in the promises and good intentions of liberals. Liberals lack
any real desire to halt illegal and Muslim immigration, so the rest of
us elected Trump to force the issue. That, and the highest corporate
tax rate in the world, were why I voted for him. I have no desire to
see 11 or 12 million people uprooted and deported. It would be a
disaster, but control the borders first, and then we can discuss
amnesty.
This is a pretty transparent strategy. Controlling the borders without
being specific about exactly what that means is a way of avoiding
further discussion.
It means preventing the entry of non-citizens into the United States,
unless they pass though official border checkpoints and obey our laws
regarding immigration.
islander
2018-05-25 13:12:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:30:06 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 23 May 2018 14:41:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 22 May 2018 07:53:40 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by El Castor
OK, so ICE is out of control. Why would that compel us to throw open
our borders to all comers?
Hyperbole alert!  We don't and that is not what most liberals
advocate.
It is exactly what "most" liberals appear to advocate. Legislation to
physically strengthen the border or tighten laws aimed at illegal
immigration are always opposed by the liberal side of the aisle.
Liberals support those laws in exchange for amnesty for the vast
majority of illegal aliens.
I also support amnesty, but I DO NOT BELIEVE that Democrats support
genuinely effective measures to definitively halt illegal immigration.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744/text
Jeff?
Sorry, missed that post. You really expect me to read the damn thing?
I will say I don't have a problem with amnesty for law abiding
illegals already here, but in exchange I would want genuine effective
measures to seal the border and deal with visa overstays, chain
migration, catch and release, etc. Without reading the document I am
confident that it intentionally DID NOT meet those requirements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
What say you?
I don't believe it would be have been implemented in good faith, nor
would it have stopped illegal immigration. For me to be a believer
would require more than words on a piece of paper. It would require a
trust in the promises and good intentions of liberals. Liberals lack
any real desire to halt illegal and Muslim immigration, so the rest of
us elected Trump to force the issue. That, and the highest corporate
tax rate in the world, were why I voted for him. I have no desire to
see 11 or 12 million people uprooted and deported. It would be a
disaster, but control the borders first, and then we can discuss
amnesty.
This is a pretty transparent strategy. Controlling the borders without
being specific about exactly what that means is a way of avoiding
further discussion.
It means preventing the entry of non-citizens into the United States,
unless they pass though official border checkpoints and obey our laws
regarding immigration.
Seriously, do you really believe that a wall along the southern border
will eliminate the problem of illegal immigration?
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-25 16:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
What say you?
I don't believe it would be have been implemented in good faith, nor
would it have stopped illegal immigration. For me to be a believer
would require more than words on a piece of paper. It would require a
trust in the promises and good intentions of liberals. Liberals lack
any real desire to halt illegal and Muslim immigration, so the rest of
us elected Trump to force the issue. That, and the highest corporate
tax rate in the world, were why I voted for him. I have no desire to
see 11 or 12 million people uprooted and deported. It would be a
disaster, but control the borders first, and then we can discuss
amnesty.
This is a pretty transparent strategy. Controlling the borders without
being specific about exactly what that means is a way of avoiding
further discussion.
It means preventing the entry of non-citizens into the United States,
unless they pass though official border checkpoints and obey our laws
regarding immigration.
A wall along the southern border is expensive and won't reduce illegal immigration much. If we build a wall 20 feet high, they will just use a 21 foot ladder. I saw a video somewhere where an illegal just threw a rope across the wall and then just walked up the wall while pulling himself up with the rope. He was across the wall in about a minute or less. Of course you have to be in good shape to do that. Best idea I have is enforced E-Verify so illegals can't get a job and go home and work on the farm. And a $10,000 fine for employers that hire illegals.
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-24 13:57:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
What say you?
I like the bit about not jumping in line (I would have voted for that). And there was also some mention of fines but it doesn't say what the fines would be? Is it $5 or $5,000? And who pays the fines? Is it the illegal or some citizen who misuses the immigration data?
-----------------------------------------

"Registration and adjustment of registered provisional immigrants."

"This is the "back of the line" provision; the idea is that illegal immigrants who gain status from this bill should not be able to become legal permanent residents sooner than someone who had legally filed a visa petition earlier and had been waiting for the approved visa to become available."
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-18 22:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
I have unique problems too, but I don't expect
Latinos to take care of them for me, and they
certainly never have - the opposite in fact, since
they tend to be religious. Perhaps I should tell
them to raise their awareness.=='
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9
of the Holy Bible.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
(Check the right sidebar for further confirmation.)

Fortunately I have essentially no contact with
Christianity myself, but it's ominous to have it
creeping back in with the new immigrants.
El Castor
2018-05-19 08:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
I have unique problems too, but I don't expect
Latinos to take care of them for me, and they
certainly never have - the opposite in fact, since
they tend to be religious. Perhaps I should tell
them to raise their awareness.=='
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9
of the Holy Bible.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
(Check the right sidebar for further confirmation.)
Fortunately I have essentially no contact with
Christianity myself, but it's ominous to have it
creeping back in with the new immigrants.
The wife's family is Catholic, so I get roped into weddings, funerals,
and christenings. It's nice to see Italians and Mexicans working
together in church doing their churchly duties in complete harmony.
islander
2018-05-19 13:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
I have unique problems too, but I don't expect
Latinos to take care of them for me, and they
certainly never have - the opposite in fact, since
they tend to be religious. Perhaps I should tell
them to raise their awareness.=='
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9
of the Holy Bible.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
(Check the right sidebar for further confirmation.)
Fortunately I have essentially no contact with
Christianity myself, but it's ominous to have it
creeping back in with the new immigrants.
In a democratic society we recognize that we are all in this together.
Driving wedges between groups is a Republican practice. Your issue is
the abuse of religion against your human rights, and your position is
understandable. Blaming it on a racial or ethnic group, however, is a
diversion that weakens your complaint.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-19 15:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
I have unique problems too, but I don't expect
Latinos to take care of them for me, and they
certainly never have - the opposite in fact, since
they tend to be religious. Perhaps I should tell
them to raise their awareness.=='
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9
of the Holy Bible.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
(Check the right sidebar for further confirmation.)
Fortunately I have essentially no contact with
Christianity myself, but it's ominous to have it
creeping back in with the new immigrants.
In a democratic society we recognize that we are all in this together.
Driving wedges between groups is a Republican practice. Your issue is
the abuse of religion against your human rights, and your position is
understandable. Blaming it on a racial or ethnic group, however, is a
diversion that weakens your complaint.
It is a fact that religion has a stranglehold on most
Hispanic cultures, as it used to have a stranglehold
on English and German cultures in the past. Any
culture that's still under the sway of any religion is
a culture that, as a whole, I don't feel can be trusted
to "do the right thing".
islander
2018-05-20 13:56:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
I have unique problems too, but I don't expect
Latinos to take care of them for me, and they
certainly never have - the opposite in fact, since
they tend to be religious. Perhaps I should tell
them to raise their awareness.=='
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9
of the Holy Bible.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
(Check the right sidebar for further confirmation.)
Fortunately I have essentially no contact with
Christianity myself, but it's ominous to have it
creeping back in with the new immigrants.
In a democratic society we recognize that we are all in this together.
Driving wedges between groups is a Republican practice. Your issue is
the abuse of religion against your human rights, and your position is
understandable. Blaming it on a racial or ethnic group, however, is a
diversion that weakens your complaint.
It is a fact that religion has a stranglehold on most
Hispanic cultures, as it used to have a stranglehold
on English and German cultures in the past. Any
culture that's still under the sway of any religion is
a culture that, as a whole, I don't feel can be trusted
to "do the right thing".
Obama had it right when he was roundly criticized after saying, "It's
not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-20 20:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
I have unique problems too, but I don't expect
Latinos to take care of them for me, and they
certainly never have - the opposite in fact, since
they tend to be religious. Perhaps I should tell
them to raise their awareness.=='
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9
of the Holy Bible.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
(Check the right sidebar for further confirmation.)
Fortunately I have essentially no contact with
Christianity myself, but it's ominous to have it
creeping back in with the new immigrants.
In a democratic society we recognize that we are all in this together.
Driving wedges between groups is a Republican practice. Your issue is
the abuse of religion against your human rights, and your position is
understandable. Blaming it on a racial or ethnic group, however, is a
diversion that weakens your complaint.
It is a fact that religion has a stranglehold on most
Hispanic cultures, as it used to have a stranglehold
on English and German cultures in the past. Any
culture that's still under the sway of any religion is
a culture that, as a whole, I don't feel can be trusted
to "do the right thing".
Obama had it right when he was roundly criticized after saying, "It's
not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I have no recollection of ever believing that religion stuff.
Even as a little kid the idea of a "soul" that lives after the
body dies and gets carried up to a heaven by fairies seemed
too ridiculous for words. I did go to church and Sunday
School until I was 15 though, even though my mother
rarely, and my foster father never, went to church. At 15
I put my foot down and flat out refused to go any more.
My mother had a hysterical fit, lying face down on the
couch and flailing her arms and legs, but it was only
because she wanted to be "respectable", not because she
believed any of it either. A few years later, she did admit
that she also couldn't believe it. Neither my sister nor her
husband, or my nephew, nor any of my blood-cousins,
believe any of it at all. My niece has gone to church
occasionally, but she's more of a "people person" than the
rest of us, and she only goes to be with friends. At least
she used to, she has a long-time boyfriend and wants to
get preggers now, but I've only met her boyfriend a
couple of times so I don't know what he thinks.

Evil people do evil things, and religion is all too ready
to support itself by condoning those evil things. Natural
Selection even works on things that have no minds,
such as sodium and chlorine being attracted to each
other to make salt.

I have read lately though, and I don't dismiss it, that
when you die, for a minute or so you know you're dead
although you can no longer move or speak. I remember
reading about a countess or something who was
guillotined during the French Revolution, and when her
head was held up for the crowd to see, there was a
plain expression of disgust on her face.
islander
2018-05-21 19:28:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 14 May 2018 11:00:20 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Sun, 13 May 2018 12:03:11 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I don't think the Republican's problem is opposition to immigration.
It's opposition to *Latino* immigration. And to the extent that is a
GOP position, they deserve what they get.
Should illegal immigration be stopped, or should we open our borders
to all who wish to come?
Illegal immigration should be stopped.
A wall, if that is what it takes? An end to catch and release?
I'm open to any specific implementations, each one to be judged on its
own merits.
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
Tells me that illegal aliens avoid states that employ e-Verify for the
simple reason that finding work in those states would be diffiucult
and attract the attention of ICE.
No, I looked at data from 2007 through 2014. Only one state was using
e-Verify in 2007 and the remainder started using it in 2011 after a
SCOTUS ruling ruled that it was legal. California, Texas and Nevada
have opposed using it. The states that have required it have some of
the lowest populations of undocumented immigrants.
PEW reports that the numbers of undocumented immigrants has remained
fairly static since 2009, even declining in California, for example.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2016/09/20/overall-number-of-u-s-unauthorized-immigrants-holds-steady-since-2009/
http://www.pewhispanic.org/interactives/unauthorized-immigrants/
The illegal immigration crisis seems to be just political exploitation
of xenophobic fear.
"It's official: Latinos now outnumber whites in California"
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-census-latinos-20150708-story.html
Perhaps the citizens of California should increase their awareness of
the unique problems faced by Latinos.
I have unique problems too, but I don't expect
Latinos to take care of them for me, and they
certainly never have - the opposite in fact, since
they tend to be religious. Perhaps I should tell
them to raise their awareness.=='
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy
little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9
of the Holy Bible.
http://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm
(Check the right sidebar for further confirmation.)
Fortunately I have essentially no contact with
Christianity myself, but it's ominous to have it
creeping back in with the new immigrants.
In a democratic society we recognize that we are all in this together.
Driving wedges between groups is a Republican practice. Your issue is
the abuse of religion against your human rights, and your position is
understandable. Blaming it on a racial or ethnic group, however, is a
diversion that weakens your complaint.
It is a fact that religion has a stranglehold on most
Hispanic cultures, as it used to have a stranglehold
on English and German cultures in the past. Any
culture that's still under the sway of any religion is
a culture that, as a whole, I don't feel can be trusted
to "do the right thing".
Obama had it right when he was roundly criticized after saying, "It's
not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or
anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I have no recollection of ever believing that religion stuff.
Even as a little kid the idea of a "soul" that lives after the
body dies and gets carried up to a heaven by fairies seemed
too ridiculous for words. I did go to church and Sunday
School until I was 15 though, even though my mother
rarely, and my foster father never, went to church. At 15
I put my foot down and flat out refused to go any more.
My mother had a hysterical fit, lying face down on the
couch and flailing her arms and legs, but it was only
because she wanted to be "respectable", not because she
believed any of it either. A few years later, she did admit
that she also couldn't believe it. Neither my sister nor her
husband, or my nephew, nor any of my blood-cousins,
believe any of it at all. My niece has gone to church
occasionally, but she's more of a "people person" than the
rest of us, and she only goes to be with friends. At least
she used to, she has a long-time boyfriend and wants to
get preggers now, but I've only met her boyfriend a
couple of times so I don't know what he thinks.
Evil people do evil things, and religion is all too ready
to support itself by condoning those evil things. Natural
Selection even works on things that have no minds,
such as sodium and chlorine being attracted to each
other to make salt.
I have read lately though, and I don't dismiss it, that
when you die, for a minute or so you know you're dead
although you can no longer move or speak. I remember
reading about a countess or something who was
guillotined during the French Revolution, and when her
head was held up for the crowd to see, there was a
plain expression of disgust on her face.
It makes sense that the computer that is your brain does not shut down
immediately. What that might mean in a larger sense than "OMG I'm dead"
is questionable.
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-17 21:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
It tells me it costs $2,300 per household to support illegal aliens in California who pay little or no tax.

http://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-california-taxpayers

"Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen."
islander
2018-05-17 23:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
It tells me it costs $2,300 per household to support illegal aliens in California who pay little or no tax.
http://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-california-taxpayers
"Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen."
This bit of misinformation has been around in various forms for over a
decade. Frankly, it is wrong. The most egregious part of this is that
employers are required to deduct payroll taxes including FICA taxes from
anyone that they employ. If they do not do so, the fault of
underpayment of taxes lies squarely on them. In some cases,
undocumented immigrants use forged SS numbers and what they pay in taxes
is forever lost to them and actually benefits those who comply with the
law. Otherwise, undocumented immigrants pay sales tax the same as
anyone else. Sales tax is high in California and accounts for
approximately half of state revenue.

You really should do some checking before propagating this kind of right
wing bullshit! You should have gotten a clue from the name of the
organization that published it. The Federation for American Immigration
Reform is a white nationalist organization that is funded by the Pioneer
Fund. It was founded by John Tanton who still serves on its board.
Here is what the Southern Poverty Law Center says about him:
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-18 15:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
It tells me it costs $2,300 per household to support illegal aliens in California who pay little or no tax.
http://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-california-taxpayers
"Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen."
This bit of misinformation has been around in various forms for over a
decade. Frankly, it is wrong. The most egregious part of this is that
employers are required to deduct payroll taxes including FICA taxes from
anyone that they employ. If they do not do so, the fault of
underpayment of taxes lies squarely on them. In some cases,
undocumented immigrants use forged SS numbers and what they pay in taxes
is forever lost to them and actually benefits those who comply with the
law. Otherwise, undocumented immigrants pay sales tax the same as
anyone else. Sales tax is high in California and accounts for
approximately half of state revenue.
You really should do some checking before propagating this kind of right
wing bullshit! You should have gotten a clue from the name of the
organization that published it. The Federation for American Immigration
Reform is a white nationalist organization that is funded by the Pioneer
Fund. It was founded by John Tanton who still serves on its board.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton
OK,so the guy is a racist. But we still have the problem of illegals not paying any income tax. They use a (ITIN) number since they don't have a SS number. And they use it exclusively to obtain the child tax credit and the earned income credit. No illegal ever files a tax return if they can't get a check in the mail from IRS. Show me one who paid any income tax.


https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/irs-welfare-agency-illegal-aliens-mark-krikorian/

"A couple weeks ago many news outlets reported on a Treasury inspector general report which found that $4.2 billion had been paid last year to illegal aliens through the Additional Child Tax Credit. That’s true as far as it goes, and plenty bad enough. But retired economist Peter Schulkin looked through the report in more detail, and it’s even worse than it looks. He subtracted the total amount of income tax paid by illegal aliens (they file using ID numbers helpfully issued to them by the IRS) from the refundable credits they receive and found that there is a net outflow of funds from the IRS to illegal-alien tax filers. In other words, the ACTC is billions more than whatever income taxes the illegal aliens paid. What amounts to an annual welfare payment to illegal aliens has steadily grown from 2005 through 2010 (even as the total illegal population has shrunk), totaling $7.3 billion over that period. Remember that when amnesty advocates tell you that one of the requirements of amnesty would be that illegal aliens would have to “pay their back taxes” — even if that were true, it might well cost U.S. taxpayers money."
islander
2018-05-18 19:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
How would you judge the federal e-verify system? Apparently, in California the system is completely voluntary.
"In 2011 California passed the Employment Acceleration Act of 2011, which says that state agencies, cities and counties cannot require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the legal immigration status of workers they hire except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds. Prior to the passage of the law, several cities and municipalities within the state of California required the use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits. Private employers may still choose to voluntarily use the E-verify system, but local cities and municipalities may no longer require use of E-verify."
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-samples/hr-qa/pages/californiae-verify.aspx
e-Verify is primarily a voluntary system except for a few states and for
employers under federal contracts. Employers don't like it even though
it is quick and easy to use and has nearly perfect accuracy.
I should add that the states that require use of e-Verify are
conservative states with minimal problems with illegal immigration.
States with the largest populations of undocumented immigrants do not
require it. What does that tell you?
It tells me it costs $2,300 per household to support illegal aliens in California who pay little or no tax.
http://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-california-taxpayers
"Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen."
This bit of misinformation has been around in various forms for over a
decade. Frankly, it is wrong. The most egregious part of this is that
employers are required to deduct payroll taxes including FICA taxes from
anyone that they employ. If they do not do so, the fault of
underpayment of taxes lies squarely on them. In some cases,
undocumented immigrants use forged SS numbers and what they pay in taxes
is forever lost to them and actually benefits those who comply with the
law. Otherwise, undocumented immigrants pay sales tax the same as
anyone else. Sales tax is high in California and accounts for
approximately half of state revenue.
You really should do some checking before propagating this kind of right
wing bullshit! You should have gotten a clue from the name of the
organization that published it. The Federation for American Immigration
Reform is a white nationalist organization that is funded by the Pioneer
Fund. It was founded by John Tanton who still serves on its board.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton
OK,so the guy is a racist. But we still have the problem of illegals not paying any income tax. They use a (ITIN) number since they don't have a SS number. And they use it exclusively to obtain the child tax credit and the earned income credit. No illegal ever files a tax return if they can't get a check in the mail from IRS. Show me one who paid any income tax.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/irs-welfare-agency-illegal-aliens-mark-krikorian/
"A couple weeks ago many news outlets reported on a Treasury inspector general report which found that $4.2 billion had been paid last year to illegal aliens through the Additional Child Tax Credit. That’s true as far as it goes, and plenty bad enough. But retired economist Peter Schulkin looked through the report in more detail, and it’s even worse than it looks. He subtracted the total amount of income tax paid by illegal aliens (they file using ID numbers helpfully issued to them by the IRS) from the refundable credits they receive and found that there is a net outflow of funds from the IRS to illegal-alien tax filers. In other words, the ACTC is billions more than whatever income taxes the illegal aliens paid. What amounts to an annual welfare payment to illegal aliens has steadily grown from 2005 through 2010 (even as the total illegal population has shrunk), totaling $7.3 billion over that period. Remember that when amnesty advocates tell you that one of the requirements of amnesty would be that illegal aliens would have to “pay their back taxes” — even if that were true, it might well cost U.S. taxpayers money."
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-18 21:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?

"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.

The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.

But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.

“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
islander
2018-05-19 13:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions

It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/

It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.

You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-20 00:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
here's another one you might like to read:

https://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-credits-for-illegal-immigrants/

"The title of the report summed up the IG’s finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”

The credits currently amount to $1,000 per child, and they are “refundable,” meaning that parents may receive refunds even when they do not owe any tax.

The IG report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010."

And the list goes on.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-20 09:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-credits-for-illegal-immigrants/
"The title of the report summed up the IG’s finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”
The credits currently amount to $1,000 per child, and they are “refundable,” meaning that parents may receive refunds even when they do not owe any tax.
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Post by b***@gmail.com
The IG report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010."
And the list goes on.
islander
2018-05-20 14:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-credits-for-illegal-immigrants/
"The title of the report summed up the IG’s finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”
The credits currently amount to $1,000 per child, and they are “refundable,” meaning that parents may receive refunds even when they do not owe any tax.
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Another example of what happens when we try to solve social problems
with the tax code. The original intent of tax credits was to actually
refund taxes paid. This was motivated by Republican interests in making
people work and opposition to anything that might benefit a "slacker."
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was passed in the early '70s and
was, as you say, a refund for working people.

In 1997 the Child Tax Credit was passed in recognition that children
cannot reasonably be expected to work and it employs a negative tax
provision for cases where the EITC does not have a sufficiently high tax
liability to cover the cost of the "refund" that might otherwise be
claimed. So, it is essentially a welfare provision for poor families
with children that is implemented under the tax code.

All this would be a lot simpler if we implemented a guaranteed minimum
household income an idea that comes up from time to time but which is
strongly opposed by conservatives.
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
The IG report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010."
And the list goes on.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-20 20:33:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
https://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/tax-credits-for-illegal-immigrants/
"The title of the report summed up the IG’s finding: “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”
The credits currently amount to $1,000 per child, and they are “refundable,” meaning that parents may receive refunds even when they do not owe any tax.
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Another example of what happens when we try to solve social problems
with the tax code. The original intent of tax credits was to actually
refund taxes paid. This was motivated by Republican interests in making
people work and opposition to anything that might benefit a "slacker."
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was passed in the early '70s and
was, as you say, a refund for working people.
In 1997 the Child Tax Credit was passed in recognition that children
cannot reasonably be expected to work and it employs a negative tax
provision for cases where the EITC does not have a sufficiently high tax
liability to cover the cost of the "refund" that might otherwise be
claimed. So, it is essentially a welfare provision for poor families
with children that is implemented under the tax code.
All this would be a lot simpler if we implemented a guaranteed minimum
household income an idea that comes up from time to time but which is
strongly opposed by conservatives.
There is, as you know, a guaranteed minimum household income
in Denmark:

One facet of the Danish welfare model has been the belief that
benefits should not be tied to the kind of job one has, or
whether someone is working or not. This approach has
proven problematic as the country continually struggles with
its unemployment rate—especially among the young. Critics
argue that there is not enough incentive for people to choose
to be employed rather than collect unemployment money.
However, proposals of dramatic reductions in benefits are
political suicide, as Danes are wary of what they might see
as the sacrifice of a commitment to equality.
https://tinyurl.com/yao4bbu9


That attitude may well be fading now though, ISTM, with the
importation of a criminal class that has nothing but contempt
for Danish culture, if I may interject my own feelings on the
matter.
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
The IG report stated that more than 2.3 million persons who did not have Social Security numbers valid for working in the U.S. got an average of roughly $1,800 each in 2010 in child tax credit refunds. That included 9,000 illegal immigrants who each got a total of $10,000 or more by retroactively claiming credits for tax years prior to 2010."
And the list goes on.
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-21 02:16:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Another example of what happens when we try to solve social problems
with the tax code. The original intent of tax credits was to actually
refund taxes paid. This was motivated by Republican interests in making
people work and opposition to anything that might benefit a "slacker."
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was passed in the early '70s and
was, as you say, a refund for working people.
In 1997 the Child Tax Credit was passed in recognition that children
cannot reasonably be expected to work and it employs a negative tax
provision for cases where the EITC does not have a sufficiently high tax
liability to cover the cost of the "refund" that might otherwise be
claimed. So, it is essentially a welfare provision for poor families
with children that is implemented under the tax code.
All this would be a lot simpler if we implemented a guaranteed minimum
household income an idea that comes up from time to time but which is
strongly opposed by conservatives.
Didn't the Soviet Union try to implement a guaranteed income before they went broke? With a guaranteed income you could drink Vodka all day and not worry about working.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-21 06:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Another example of what happens when we try to solve social problems
with the tax code. The original intent of tax credits was to actually
refund taxes paid. This was motivated by Republican interests in making
people work and opposition to anything that might benefit a "slacker."
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was passed in the early '70s and
was, as you say, a refund for working people.
In 1997 the Child Tax Credit was passed in recognition that children
cannot reasonably be expected to work and it employs a negative tax
provision for cases where the EITC does not have a sufficiently high tax
liability to cover the cost of the "refund" that might otherwise be
claimed. So, it is essentially a welfare provision for poor families
with children that is implemented under the tax code.
All this would be a lot simpler if we implemented a guaranteed minimum
household income an idea that comes up from time to time but which is
strongly opposed by conservatives.
Didn't the Soviet Union try to implement a guaranteed income before they went broke? With a guaranteed income you could drink Vodka all day and not worry about working.
Scandinavia (including Iceland) has had much better luck
with it, but that was before the Islamics came. They're really
poisoning the well, because many of them don't have the same
values as the Scandinavians.

I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.

Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-21 13:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Another example of what happens when we try to solve social problems
with the tax code. The original intent of tax credits was to actually
refund taxes paid. This was motivated by Republican interests in making
people work and opposition to anything that might benefit a "slacker."
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was passed in the early '70s and
was, as you say, a refund for working people.
In 1997 the Child Tax Credit was passed in recognition that children
cannot reasonably be expected to work and it employs a negative tax
provision for cases where the EITC does not have a sufficiently high tax
liability to cover the cost of the "refund" that might otherwise be
claimed. So, it is essentially a welfare provision for poor families
with children that is implemented under the tax code.
All this would be a lot simpler if we implemented a guaranteed minimum
household income an idea that comes up from time to time but which is
strongly opposed by conservatives.
Didn't the Soviet Union try to implement a guaranteed income before they went broke? With a guaranteed income you could drink Vodka all day and not worry about working.
Scandinavia (including Iceland) has had much better luck
with it, but that was before the Islamics came. They're really
poisoning the well, because many of them don't have the same
values as the Scandinavians.
I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.
Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
I enjoyed my job for several years and would go in early and stay late with no overtime. We were on salary and couldn't get any overtime before working 4 extra hours a week for free. It also helped in travel time since the roads were clear early in the morning and after 6PM. I'd rather be at work than sit on a packed freeway doing 10MPH. When I left, they offered me a contract job about 6 months later and I accepted it but it was vetoed by the president so I didn't get it. The president didn't like me for some reason. But the engineering manager liked me and personally turned on the air Conditioner‎ one night to keep me cool while working late.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-21 16:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Another example of what happens when we try to solve social problems
with the tax code. The original intent of tax credits was to actually
refund taxes paid. This was motivated by Republican interests in making
people work and opposition to anything that might benefit a "slacker."
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was passed in the early '70s and
was, as you say, a refund for working people.
In 1997 the Child Tax Credit was passed in recognition that children
cannot reasonably be expected to work and it employs a negative tax
provision for cases where the EITC does not have a sufficiently high tax
liability to cover the cost of the "refund" that might otherwise be
claimed. So, it is essentially a welfare provision for poor families
with children that is implemented under the tax code.
All this would be a lot simpler if we implemented a guaranteed minimum
household income an idea that comes up from time to time but which is
strongly opposed by conservatives.
Didn't the Soviet Union try to implement a guaranteed income before they went broke? With a guaranteed income you could drink Vodka all day and not worry about working.
Scandinavia (including Iceland) has had much better luck
with it, but that was before the Islamics came. They're really
poisoning the well, because many of them don't have the same
values as the Scandinavians.
I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.
Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
I enjoyed my job for several years and would go in early and stay late with no overtime. We were on salary and couldn't get any overtime before working 4 extra hours a week for free. It also helped in travel time since the roads were clear early in the morning and after 6PM. I'd rather be at work than sit on a packed freeway doing 10MPH. When I left, they offered me a contract job about 6 months later and I accepted it but it was vetoed by the president so I didn't get it. The president didn't like me for some reason. But the engineering manager liked me and personally turned on the air Conditioner? one night to keep me cool while working late.
For a couple of years I commuted between work
in Palo Alto and home in San Francisco. That was
the reverse direction from a usual commute, but
route 101 was still not pleasant to drive on. I
don't remember a 10 mph commute usually,
though that was 35 or 40 years ago. I do remember
that it was much worse when there was a football
game scheduled at Candlestick park, and since I
don't follow football I didn't know when that was
going to be. Before long I switched to route 280,
which was a longer but faster and much more
pleasant commute.

On this map, 101 is the red line and 280 is
the blue line to the left of it:
https://tinyurl.com/ydxhhgkg
Where I was working was near 101, somewhere
near the Dumbarton Bridge which is the lowest
green line. It looks like a really long commute
to me now.
islander
2018-05-21 19:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
Another example of what happens when we try to solve social problems
with the tax code. The original intent of tax credits was to actually
refund taxes paid. This was motivated by Republican interests in making
people work and opposition to anything that might benefit a "slacker."
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was passed in the early '70s and
was, as you say, a refund for working people.
In 1997 the Child Tax Credit was passed in recognition that children
cannot reasonably be expected to work and it employs a negative tax
provision for cases where the EITC does not have a sufficiently high tax
liability to cover the cost of the "refund" that might otherwise be
claimed. So, it is essentially a welfare provision for poor families
with children that is implemented under the tax code.
All this would be a lot simpler if we implemented a guaranteed minimum
household income an idea that comes up from time to time but which is
strongly opposed by conservatives.
Didn't the Soviet Union try to implement a guaranteed income before they went broke? With a guaranteed income you could drink Vodka all day and not worry about working.
Scandinavia (including Iceland) has had much better luck
with it, but that was before the Islamics came. They're really
poisoning the well, because many of them don't have the same
values as the Scandinavians.
I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.
Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
I enjoyed my job for several years and would go in early and stay late with no overtime. We were on salary and couldn't get any overtime before working 4 extra hours a week for free. It also helped in travel time since the roads were clear early in the morning and after 6PM. I'd rather be at work than sit on a packed freeway doing 10MPH. When I left, they offered me a contract job about 6 months later and I accepted it but it was vetoed by the president so I didn't get it. The president didn't like me for some reason. But the engineering manager liked me and personally turned on the air Conditioner? one night to keep me cool while working late.
For a couple of years I commuted between work
in Palo Alto and home in San Francisco. That was
the reverse direction from a usual commute, but
route 101 was still not pleasant to drive on. I
don't remember a 10 mph commute usually,
though that was 35 or 40 years ago. I do remember
that it was much worse when there was a football
game scheduled at Candlestick park, and since I
don't follow football I didn't know when that was
going to be. Before long I switched to route 280,
which was a longer but faster and much more
pleasant commute.
On this map, 101 is the red line and 280 is
https://tinyurl.com/ydxhhgkg
Where I was working was near 101, somewhere
near the Dumbarton Bridge which is the lowest
green line. It looks like a really long commute
to me now.
We lived not far from there.
Emily
2018-05-21 15:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.
Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
Having children is the biggest reason people try to keep up with the
Joneses. Decisions like where to live are heavily influenced by the
kind of people one will be living around and how good the schools are.

I've always believed that a good bit of prejudice against gay people
is jealousy. Here I am working at a job I hate and I'm 50 years old
but I've got to keep my nose to the grindstone so I can send the kids
to college and there's that gay guy in the nice suit, driving a
Porsche. Grrrrr!
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-21 16:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.
Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
Having children is the biggest reason people try to keep up with the
Joneses. Decisions like where to live are heavily influenced by the
kind of people one will be living around and how good the schools are.
I've always believed that a good bit of prejudice against gay people
is jealousy. Here I am working at a job I hate and I'm 50 years old
but I've got to keep my nose to the grindstone so I can send the kids
to college and there's that gay guy in the nice suit, driving a
Porsche. Grrrrr!
I didn't care about schools of course, but I did live in the
Castro because it was a big gay area, though it was never the
most fun area IMO. Nowadays it's a lot different, since there
are so many heterosexuals around that I'm always weaving
my way between baby carriages when walking the three
18th-Street blocks between my place and Castro Street.
I'm 73 now and something of a curmudgeon, so "fun" is
ancient history.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-21 16:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.
Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
Having children is the biggest reason people try to keep up with the
Joneses. Decisions like where to live are heavily influenced by the
kind of people one will be living around and how good the schools are.
I've always believed that a good bit of prejudice against gay people
is jealousy. Here I am working at a job I hate and I'm 50 years old
but I've got to keep my nose to the grindstone so I can send the kids
to college and there's that gay guy in the nice suit, driving a
Porsche. Grrrrr!
Gary
2018-05-22 12:04:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Emily
Post by rumpelstiltskin
I haven't worked since I was a little over 50, but almost no
vodka. A half-ounce or a full-ounce or so of whiskey in my hot
chocolate two or three times a week, is about it for me. I've
never for one minute regretted quitting working, since I never
enjoyed it or got any satisfaction out of it. Looking back, I
wish I'd retired earlier, since I have lots more money than
I'll ever need now, and working was for me always a drag
on my enjoyment of life.
Of course, I am lucky to be living in the USA where one can
do that, though not many people seem to take advantage of it.
They're too busy "keeping up with the Joneses", I guess.
https://tinyurl.com/ycrbv8gq
Having children is the biggest reason people try to keep up with the
Joneses. Decisions like where to live are heavily influenced by the
kind of people one will be living around and how good the schools are.
I've always believed that a good bit of prejudice against gay people
is jealousy. Here I am working at a job I hate and I'm 50 years old
but I've got to keep my nose to the grindstone so I can send the kids
to college and there's that gay guy in the nice suit, driving a
Porsche. Grrrrr!
What's to be jealous of ? I'd rather ride with a pretty woman in a
Volkswagen than a rich gay in a Rolls Royce. Especially -- if they
had their hand in my lap :-)
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-20 15:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
No wonder I don't understand legal terminology. For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable? In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund. For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
You are of course correct that "refundable" doesn't mean that recipients
have to pay it back if they don't spend it. It instead refers to a tax
credit that is larger than the total tax you owe.

Let's say your total tax liability is $1000, but you are eligible for a
$1500 tax credit. If the tax credit is refundable, you can claim the
full $1500 amount and the IRS will refund you the $500 difference
between the credit and your total tax liability. If the tax credit is
not refundable, you only can claim $1000.

islander - you may have to reply to this post for rumple to see it. I
think he has my plonked.
islander
2018-05-21 19:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
    No wonder I don't understand legal terminology.  For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable?  In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund.  For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
You are of course correct that "refundable" doesn't mean that recipients
have to pay it back if they don't spend it.  It instead refers to a tax
credit that is larger than the total tax you owe.
Let's say your total tax liability is $1000, but you are eligible for a
$1500 tax credit.  If the tax credit is refundable, you can claim the
full $1500 amount and the IRS will refund you the $500 difference
between the credit and your total tax liability.  If the tax credit is
not refundable, you only can claim $1000.
islander - you may have to reply to this post for rumple to see it.  I
think he has my plonked.
I don't think that Rumple will mind if I comply on this one.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-22 12:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
    No wonder I don't understand legal terminology.  For one thing,
how can a "credit" be refundable?  In normal language, a credit is
something already granted, so unless "refundable" means that the
recipients have to refund any unspent part to the government
(and my guess is that's *not* what it means), there's nothing to
refund.  For another thing, money given that's not a tax refund
isn't a "refund", it's a "gift", or a "loan" if one is obliged to pay
it back.
You are of course correct that "refundable" doesn't mean that recipients
have to pay it back if they don't spend it.  It instead refers to a tax
credit that is larger than the total tax you owe.
Let's say your total tax liability is $1000, but you are eligible for a
$1500 tax credit.  If the tax credit is refundable, you can claim the
full $1500 amount and the IRS will refund you the $500 difference
between the credit and your total tax liability.  If the tax credit is
not refundable, you only can claim $1000.
islander - you may have to reply to this post for rumple to see it.  I
think he has my plonked.
I don't think that Rumple will mind if I comply on this one.
I do have Josh plonked. I still object to calling something
that was never paid a "refund". That's not really the English
Language, but terms these days are usually chosen by
partisans for their bamboozlement potential, not for any
actual accuracy.
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-22 00:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
The thing that bothers me about illegal immigration is illegals jumping ahead in in line verses those who have been patiently waiting 13 years or longer to be considered for immigration to the US. Ever been to a supermarket where you had 3 items and someone ahead of you had a basket full of items and they never offered to let you go ahead in the line? It happens to me often when I shop at a Hispanic market and some woman has a $100 basket-full of groceries and then whips out the EBT card and charges everything to the food stamp program. The least she could have done was offer me place ahead in the line so I didn't have to wait to total up all the free benefits.

https://cis.org/Vaughan/Waiting-List-Legal-Immigrant-Visas-Keeps-Growing

"More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 pe
islander
2018-05-22 01:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
The thing that bothers me about illegal immigration is illegals jumping ahead in in line verses those who have been patiently waiting 13 years or longer to be considered for immigration to the US. Ever been to a supermarket where you had 3 items and someone ahead of you had a basket full of items and they never offered to let you go ahead in the line? It happens to me often when I shop at a Hispanic market and some woman has a $100 basket-full of groceries and then whips out the EBT card and charges everything to the food stamp program. The least she could have done was offer me place ahead in the line so I didn't have to wait to total up all the free benefits.
https://cis.org/Vaughan/Waiting-List-Legal-Immigrant-Visas-Keeps-Growing
"More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 pe
Undocumented immigrants don't get to go to the front of the line,
whatever that means.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/heres-the-myth-about-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-that-drives-me-crazy-commentary.html

There are proposals to create a work permit status, but that is not
equivalent to a visa and definitely not a step toward citizenship. The
motivation for this is to create a legal status that would allow them to
come out of the shadows.
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-22 06:41:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
The thing that bothers me about illegal immigration is illegals jumping ahead in in line verses those who have been patiently waiting 13 years or longer to be considered for immigration to the US. Ever been to a supermarket where you had 3 items and someone ahead of you had a basket full of items and they never offered to let you go ahead in the line? It happens to me often when I shop at a Hispanic market and some woman has a $100 basket-full of groceries and then whips out the EBT card and charges everything to the food stamp program. The least she could have done was offer me place ahead in the line so I didn't have to wait to total up all the free benefits.
https://cis.org/Vaughan/Waiting-List-Legal-Immigrant-Visas-Keeps-Growing
"More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 pe
Undocumented immigrants don't get to go to the front of the line,
whatever that means.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/heres-the-myth-about-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-that-drives-me-crazy-commentary.html
There are proposals to create a work permit status, but that is not
equivalent to a visa and definitely not a step toward citizenship. The
motivation for this is to create a legal status that would allow them to
come out of the shadows.
The front of the line is whatever exists when you cross the border illegally. But that was a nice link you provided. The girl in the top picture with the snow white teeth reminds me of my missing girl friend. She sure is cute.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-22 16:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
{snip}
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Undocumented immigrants don't get to go to the front of the line,
whatever that means.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/heres-the-myth-about-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-that-drives-me-crazy-commentary.html
There is a line for obtaining a green card. The Gang of Eight proposal
created a new category called Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI).
An RPI goes to the back of the green card line, but is permitted to live
in the USA for at least 12 years as an RPI. To me, that effectively is
butting in line because other green-card applicants either don't get to
live in the USA in the meantime or went through another line (e.g.,
H1-B) to live in the USA.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
There are proposals to create a work permit status, but that is not
equivalent to a visa and definitely not a step toward citizenship. The
motivation for this is to create a legal status that would allow them to
come out of the shadows.
The front of the line is whatever exists when you cross the border illegally.
As you can tell from Bill's response, when people complain about illegal
aliens going to the front of the line, what they mean is they should be
deported and start over again like they were never here. I am
vehemently opposed to that policy and supported the Gang of Eight proposal.

On the other hand, I don't like euphemisms. The Gang of Eight proposal
is an amnesty that allows illegal aliens to butt in line. And, it is a
damned good thing too.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-22 12:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
The thing that bothers me about illegal immigration is illegals jumping ahead in in line verses those who have been patiently waiting 13 years or longer to be considered for immigration to the US. Ever been to a supermarket where you had 3 items and someone ahead of you had a basket full of items and they never offered to let you go ahead in the line? It happens to me often when I shop at a Hispanic market and some woman has a $100 basket-full of groceries and then whips out the EBT card and charges everything to the food stamp program. The least she could have done was offer me place ahead in the line so I didn't have to wait to total up all the free benefits.
https://cis.org/Vaughan/Waiting-List-Legal-Immigrant-Visas-Keeps-Growing
"More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 pe
Undocumented immigrants don't get to go to the front of the line,
whatever that means.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/heres-the-myth-about-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-that-drives-me-crazy-commentary.html
There are proposals to create a work permit status, but that is not
equivalent to a visa and definitely not a step toward citizenship. The
motivation for this is to create a legal status that would allow them to
come out of the shadows.
A proliferation of "categories" doesn't make things simpler
at all, IMV, especially not when the elements in the categories
are expressed with words that don't mean what they usually
mean.
islander
2018-05-22 15:23:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
The thing that bothers me about illegal immigration is illegals jumping ahead in in line verses those who have been patiently waiting 13 years or longer to be considered for immigration to the US. Ever been to a supermarket where you had 3 items and someone ahead of you had a basket full of items and they never offered to let you go ahead in the line? It happens to me often when I shop at a Hispanic market and some woman has a $100 basket-full of groceries and then whips out the EBT card and charges everything to the food stamp program. The least she could have done was offer me place ahead in the line so I didn't have to wait to total up all the free benefits.
https://cis.org/Vaughan/Waiting-List-Legal-Immigrant-Visas-Keeps-Growing
"More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 pe
Undocumented immigrants don't get to go to the front of the line,
whatever that means.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/heres-the-myth-about-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-that-drives-me-crazy-commentary.html
There are proposals to create a work permit status, but that is not
equivalent to a visa and definitely not a step toward citizenship. The
motivation for this is to create a legal status that would allow them to
come out of the shadows.
A proliferation of "categories" doesn't make things simpler
at all, IMV, especially not when the elements in the categories
are expressed with words that don't mean what they usually
mean.
When words are intentionally used to obfuscate, I agree. But, words are
all we have. In the case of undocumented immigrants, we have a serious
problem of a part of the population that lives in the shadows. Finding
a way to bring them out of the shadows is important. Unfortunately,
this doesn't work under the existing categories of legal residency. So,
another category is needed.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-22 17:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
The thing that bothers me about illegal immigration is illegals jumping ahead in in line verses those who have been patiently waiting 13 years or longer to be considered for immigration to the US. Ever been to a supermarket where you had 3 items and someone ahead of you had a basket full of items and they never offered to let you go ahead in the line? It happens to me often when I shop at a Hispanic market and some woman has a $100 basket-full of groceries and then whips out the EBT card and charges everything to the food stamp program. The least she could have done was offer me place ahead in the line so I didn't have to wait to total up all the free benefits.
https://cis.org/Vaughan/Waiting-List-Legal-Immigrant-Visas-Keeps-Growing
"More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 pe
Undocumented immigrants don't get to go to the front of the line,
whatever that means.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/heres-the-myth-about-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-that-drives-me-crazy-commentary.html
There are proposals to create a work permit status, but that is not
equivalent to a visa and definitely not a step toward citizenship. The
motivation for this is to create a legal status that would allow them to
come out of the shadows.
A proliferation of "categories" doesn't make things simpler
at all, IMV, especially not when the elements in the categories
are expressed with words that don't mean what they usually
mean.
When words are intentionally used to obfuscate, I agree. But, words are
all we have. In the case of undocumented immigrants, we have a serious
problem of a part of the population that lives in the shadows. Finding
a way to bring them out of the shadows is important. Unfortunately,
this doesn't work under the existing categories of legal residency. So,
another category is needed.
We wouldn't have a problem with illegal -- Oh, pardon me,
I meant "undocumented" of course (must remember to use
the accepted wrong word) -- immigrants if we simply didn't
tolerate having them stay. I say that as an immigrant
myself, but as a "legal" -- or perhaps I should say a
"documented" -- one.
islander
2018-05-24 16:01:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by islander
ITIN numbers are simply the equivalent of a SS number for residents. It
provides a mechanism for foreign nationals to pay taxes in the US, but
does not qualify them for SS benefits. They still have to pay their
share of taxes.
So, what is the problem?
There are many problems. One problem is illegals collecting $1000 per dependant child not living in the US. Do you know of an illegal who filed a tax return without getting a big refund many times more than they paid into the system?
"Each spring, at tax preparation offices all across the nation, many illegal immigrants are now eagerly filing tax returns to take advantage of a tax loophole, using their ITIN numbers to get huge refunds from the IRS.
The loophole is called the Additional Child Tax Credit. It’s a fully-refundable credit of up to $1000 per child, and it’s meant to help working families who have children living at home.
But many undocumented workers are claiming the tax credit for kids who live in Mexico – lots of kids in Mexico.
“We’ve seen sometimes 10 or 12 dependents, most times nieces and nephews, on these tax forms,” the whistleblower said. “The more you put on there, the more you get back.”
This little bit of misinformation has been making the rounds of right
wing social media since 2012 when it first appeared in an Indianapolis
investigative report of WTHR News. It quickly went viral.
https://www.wthr.com/article/tax-loophole-costs-billions
It was picked up and promoted by Republicans (notably Rubio and Vitter)
who wanted to kill the Child Tax Credit that was implemented in 1998.
Here is a good summary of what it was about from that time period.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2012/05/30/11579/separating-fact-from-fiction-about-the-child-tax-credit/
It is now back in the news again because the Republicans still want to
kill Tax Credits and blaming undocumented immigrants for abuses of these
laws is pretty low, IMO. The various tax credit programs including the
Additional Child Tax Credit are federal law. These programs are
intended to help people in poverty and cover everyone who files a tax
return. Yes, there are abuses that the IRS miss, but this is really
small potatoes compared to the "totally legal" abuses by those who can
afford a creative tax attorney. I count Trump among them.
You might at least have the courage to call this what it is, namely not
a problem of undocumented immigrants, but a continuing attempt on the
part of Republicans to kill social programs.
The thing that bothers me about illegal immigration is illegals jumping ahead in in line verses those who have been patiently waiting 13 years or longer to be considered for immigration to the US. Ever been to a supermarket where you had 3 items and someone ahead of you had a basket full of items and they never offered to let you go ahead in the line? It happens to me often when I shop at a Hispanic market and some woman has a $100 basket-full of groceries and then whips out the EBT card and charges everything to the food stamp program. The least she could have done was offer me place ahead in the line so I didn't have to wait to total up all the free benefits.
https://cis.org/Vaughan/Waiting-List-Legal-Immigrant-Visas-Keeps-Growing
"More than half of the waiting list is comprised of about 2.5 million people who have been sponsored by a sibling who is a U.S. citizen (see Figure 1). These applicants must wait at least 13 years for their application to be adjudicated. The largest number (30 pe
Undocumented immigrants don't get to go to the front of the line,
whatever that means.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/24/heres-the-myth-about-being-an-undocumented-immigrant-that-drives-me-crazy-commentary.html
There are proposals to create a work permit status, but that is not
equivalent to a visa and definitely not a step toward citizenship. The
motivation for this is to create a legal status that would allow them to
come out of the shadows.
A proliferation of "categories" doesn't make things simpler
at all, IMV, especially not when the elements in the categories
are expressed with words that don't mean what they usually
mean.
When words are intentionally used to obfuscate, I agree. But, words are
all we have. In the case of undocumented immigrants, we have a serious
problem of a part of the population that lives in the shadows. Finding
a way to bring them out of the shadows is important. Unfortunately,
this doesn't work under the existing categories of legal residency. So,
another category is needed.
We wouldn't have a problem with illegal -- Oh, pardon me,
I meant "undocumented" of course (must remember to use
the accepted wrong word) -- immigrants if we simply didn't
tolerate having them stay. I say that as an immigrant
myself, but as a "legal" -- or perhaps I should say a
"documented" -- one.
People cannot be illegal. I avoid using that term because it is
insulting to a lot of people and that interferes with rational conversation.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-24 16:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is
insulting to a lot of people and that interferes with rational
conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
w***@gmail.com
2018-05-24 16:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Especially if they are threatened with death and violence if they return Hey!
islander
2018-05-24 19:40:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people and
that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal. Their acts can be illegal. Better to avoid
the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented immigrants as
illegal. "Undocumented" is not a euphemism. It is an accurate
description of their status. Words have meaning.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-24 23:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people and
that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal. Their acts can be illegal. Better to avoid
the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented immigrants as
illegal. "Undocumented" is not a euphemism. It is an accurate
description of their status. Words have meaning.
"Undocumented" also conveniently avoids any mention
that what they are doing is illegal.
islander
2018-05-25 00:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people and
that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal. Their acts can be illegal. Better to avoid
the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented immigrants as
illegal. "Undocumented" is not a euphemism. It is an accurate
description of their status. Words have meaning.
"Undocumented" also conveniently avoids any mention
that what they are doing is illegal.
Perhaps, but that is a problem that can easily be resolved by using
words that describe their illegal act.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-25 00:24:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people and
that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.  Better to avoid
the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented immigrants as
illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a euphemism.  It is an accurate
description of their status.  Words have meaning.
    "Undocumented" also conveniently avoids any mention
that what they are doing is illegal.
Perhaps, but that is a problem that can easily be resolved by using
words that describe their illegal act.
What words do you suggest?
islander
2018-05-25 00:31:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people and
that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.  Better to avoid
the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented immigrants as
illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a euphemism.  It is an accurate
description of their status.  Words have meaning.
    "Undocumented" also conveniently avoids any mention
that what they are doing is illegal.
Perhaps, but that is a problem that can easily be resolved by using
words that describe their illegal act.
What words do you suggest?
You just did a pretty good job of describing the various illegal acts.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-25 00:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people
and that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.
When it comes to one's immigration status, that is a distinction without
a difference.
Better to avoid
the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented immigrants as
illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a euphemism.  It is an accurate
description of their status.  Words have meaning.
We have citizens, immigrants (those with green cards) and aliens (every
one else). The first two groups are implicitly in the country legally.
The latter may be here legally (through a non-immigrant visa) or illegally.

A subset of aliens are people who entered the country illegally and
people who entered the country legally but overstayed their visas and
remain illegally in the USA. And yet, you want to call these people
"immigrants" as if they have green cards. Sorry, your use of the word
is not accurate. They are aliens. They actions have out them into an
illegal status.
islander
2018-05-25 00:52:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people
and that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.
When it comes to one's immigration status, that is a distinction without
a difference.
Better to avoid the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented
immigrants as illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a euphemism.  It is an
accurate description of their status.  Words have meaning.
We have citizens, immigrants (those with green cards) and aliens (every
one else).  The first two groups are implicitly in the country legally.
The latter may be here legally (through a non-immigrant visa) or illegally.
A subset of aliens are people who entered the country illegally and
people who entered the country legally but overstayed their visas and
remain illegally in the USA.  And yet, you want to call these people
"immigrants" as if they have green cards.  Sorry, your use of the word
is not accurate.  They are aliens.  They actions have out them into an
illegal status.
Yes, there is an implication that an immigrant intends to live in
another country permanently.
Defn: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
On the other hand, alien implies foreign allegiance.
Defn: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or
government

So, either term could be used depending upon the intent of the person
vis-a-vis permanent resident status.

How would you describe Rumple? He is legally resident by virtue of a
visa, but he retains an allegiance to his country of birth. He is
documented, but his act of remaining in this country is legal. If he
neglected to renew his visa, he would become undocumented, but would
still not be an illegal person.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-25 01:07:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people
and that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.
When it comes to one's immigration status, that is a distinction
without a difference.
Better to avoid the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented
immigrants as illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a euphemism.  It is an
accurate description of their status.  Words have meaning.
We have citizens, immigrants (those with green cards) and aliens
(every one else).  The first two groups are implicitly in the country
legally. The latter may be here legally (through a non-immigrant visa)
or illegally.
A subset of aliens are people who entered the country illegally and
people who entered the country legally but overstayed their visas and
remain illegally in the USA.  And yet, you want to call these people
"immigrants" as if they have green cards.  Sorry, your use of the word
is not accurate.  They are aliens.  They actions have out them into an
illegal status.
Yes, there is an implication that an immigrant intends to live in
another country permanently.
Defn: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
On the other hand, alien implies foreign allegiance.
Defn: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or
government
So, either term could be used depending upon the intent of the person
vis-a-vis permanent resident status.
No. The terms "immigrant" and "alien" are defined in US law as I
described above.
Post by islander
How would you describe Rumple?  He is legally resident by virtue of a
visa, but he retains an allegiance to his country of birth.  He is
documented, but his act of remaining in this country is legal.  If he
neglected to renew his visa, he would become undocumented, but would
still not be an illegal person.
He is an immigrant because he has his green card. If he neglected to
renew his green card (how stupid would that be), he would become an
alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.

Are you OK with "alien who is unlawfully present in the United States"?
islander
2018-05-25 05:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people
and that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.
When it comes to one's immigration status, that is a distinction
without a difference.
Better to avoid the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented
immigrants as illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a euphemism.  It is an
accurate description of their status.  Words have meaning.
We have citizens, immigrants (those with green cards) and aliens
(every one else).  The first two groups are implicitly in the country
legally. The latter may be here legally (through a non-immigrant
visa) or illegally.
A subset of aliens are people who entered the country illegally and
people who entered the country legally but overstayed their visas and
remain illegally in the USA.  And yet, you want to call these people
"immigrants" as if they have green cards.  Sorry, your use of the
word is not accurate.  They are aliens.  They actions have out them
into an illegal status.
Yes, there is an implication that an immigrant intends to live in
another country permanently.
Defn: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
On the other hand, alien implies foreign allegiance.
Defn: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or
government
So, either term could be used depending upon the intent of the person
vis-a-vis permanent resident status.
No.  The terms "immigrant" and "alien" are defined in US law as I
described above.
Sorry, but I don't see the difference between Merriam/Webster and Blacks
or FindLaw legal dictionaries.
Immigrant - This term describes a person who enters a country for
permanent residence from another country.
Alien - A foreigner ; one born abroad; a person resident in one country,
but owing allegiance to another.

The difference between the two has to do with motive regarding residency.
Post by islander
How would you describe Rumple?  He is legally resident by virtue of a
visa, but he retains an allegiance to his country of birth.  He is
documented, but his act of remaining in this country is legal.  If he
neglected to renew his visa, he would become undocumented, but would
still not be an illegal person.
He is an immigrant because he has his green card.  If he neglected to
renew his green card (how stupid would that be), he would become an
alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.
Are you OK with "alien who is unlawfully present in the United States"?
No. In the Rumple hypothetical, due to his forgetfulness in renewing
his visa, he would become an immigrant who is unlawfully present in the
United States because his intent is demonstratively permanent residence.
He would not be reclassified as an alien.

But, we have wandered from the question of whether it is correct to
label a person as illegal. People cannot be illegal. Their status
might be undocumented and their presence here might then be illegal.
But, a person cannot be illegal, whether alien, immigrant, or any other
classification that you might think of.

You might enjoy Elle Wiesel's take on the expression: "You who are
so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is illegal. That
is a contradiction in terms. Human beings can be beautiful or more
beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but
illegal? How can a human being be illegal?"

The article that I got that quote from provides a deeper look into the
use of the expression.
http://nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-05-25 14:49:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of
people and that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.
When it comes to one's immigration status, that is a distinction
without a difference.
Better to avoid the acrimony that results from labeling
undocumented immigrants as illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a
euphemism.  It is an accurate description of their status.  Words
have meaning.
We have citizens, immigrants (those with green cards) and aliens
(every one else).  The first two groups are implicitly in the
country legally. The latter may be here legally (through a
non-immigrant visa) or illegally.
A subset of aliens are people who entered the country illegally and
people who entered the country legally but overstayed their visas
and remain illegally in the USA.  And yet, you want to call these
people "immigrants" as if they have green cards.  Sorry, your use of
the word is not accurate.  They are aliens.  They actions have out
them into an illegal status.
Yes, there is an implication that an immigrant intends to live in
another country permanently.
Defn: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
On the other hand, alien implies foreign allegiance.
Defn: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or
government
So, either term could be used depending upon the intent of the person
vis-a-vis permanent resident status.
No.  The terms "immigrant" and "alien" are defined in US law as I
described above.
Sorry, but I don't see the difference between Merriam/Webster and Blacks
or FindLaw legal dictionaries.
Immigrant - This term describes a person who enters a country for
permanent residence from another country.
Alien - A foreigner ; one born abroad; a person resident in one country,
but owing allegiance to another.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliens
Post by islander
The difference between the two has to do with motive regarding residency.
Post by islander
How would you describe Rumple?  He is legally resident by virtue of a
visa, but he retains an allegiance to his country of birth.  He is
documented, but his act of remaining in this country is legal.  If he
neglected to renew his visa, he would become undocumented, but would
still not be an illegal person.
He is an immigrant because he has his green card.  If he neglected to
renew his green card (how stupid would that be), he would become an
alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.
Are you OK with "alien who is unlawfully present in the United States"?
No.  In the Rumple hypothetical, due to his forgetfulness in renewing
his visa, he would become an immigrant who is unlawfully present in the
United States because his intent is demonstratively permanent residence.
 He would not be reclassified as an alien.
How about "unlawfully present immigrant" (noting that he loses his
immigrant status per my link above, so "unlawfully present alien" is
more accurate)?
Post by islander
But, we have wandered from the question of whether it is correct to
label a person as illegal.  People cannot be illegal.  Their status
might be undocumented and their presence here might then be illegal.
But, a person cannot be illegal, whether alien, immigrant, or any other
classification that you might think of.
You might enjoy Elle Wiesel's take on the expression: "You who are
so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is illegal.  That
is a contradiction in terms.  Human beings can be beautiful or more
beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong, but
illegal?  How can a human being be illegal?"
The article that I got that quote from provides a deeper look into the
use of the expression.
http://nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html
islander
2018-05-25 16:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of
people and that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal.  Their acts can be illegal.
When it comes to one's immigration status, that is a distinction
without a difference.
Better to avoid the acrimony that results from labeling
undocumented immigrants as illegal.  "Undocumented" is not a
euphemism.  It is an accurate description of their status.  Words
have meaning.
We have citizens, immigrants (those with green cards) and aliens
(every one else).  The first two groups are implicitly in the
country legally. The latter may be here legally (through a
non-immigrant visa) or illegally.
A subset of aliens are people who entered the country illegally and
people who entered the country legally but overstayed their visas
and remain illegally in the USA.  And yet, you want to call these
people "immigrants" as if they have green cards.  Sorry, your use
of the word is not accurate.  They are aliens.  They actions have
out them into an illegal status.
Yes, there is an implication that an immigrant intends to live in
another country permanently.
Defn: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
On the other hand, alien implies foreign allegiance.
Defn: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or
government
So, either term could be used depending upon the intent of the
person vis-a-vis permanent resident status.
No.  The terms "immigrant" and "alien" are defined in US law as I
described above.
Sorry, but I don't see the difference between Merriam/Webster and
Blacks or FindLaw legal dictionaries.
Immigrant - This term describes a person who enters a country for
permanent residence from another country.
Alien - A foreigner ; one born abroad; a person resident in one
country, but owing allegiance to another.
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/immigration-terms-and-definitions-involving-aliens
Post by islander
The difference between the two has to do with motive regarding residency.
Post by islander
How would you describe Rumple?  He is legally resident by virtue of
a visa, but he retains an allegiance to his country of birth.  He is
documented, but his act of remaining in this country is legal.  If
he neglected to renew his visa, he would become undocumented, but
would still not be an illegal person.
He is an immigrant because he has his green card.  If he neglected to
renew his green card (how stupid would that be), he would become an
alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.
Are you OK with "alien who is unlawfully present in the United States"?
No.  In the Rumple hypothetical, due to his forgetfulness in renewing
his visa, he would become an immigrant who is unlawfully present in
the United States because his intent is demonstratively permanent
residence.   He would not be reclassified as an alien.
How about "unlawfully present immigrant" (noting that he loses his
immigrant status per my link above, so "unlawfully present alien" is
more accurate)?
I am OK with "unlawfully present immigrant."
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
But, we have wandered from the question of whether it is correct to
label a person as illegal.  People cannot be illegal.  Their status
might be undocumented and their presence here might then be illegal.
But, a person cannot be illegal, whether alien, immigrant, or any
other classification that you might think of.
You might enjoy Elle Wiesel's take on the expression: "You who are
so-called illegal aliens must know that no human being is illegal.
That is a contradiction in terms.  Human beings can be beautiful or
more beautiful, they can be fat or skinny, they can be right or wrong,
but illegal?  How can a human being be illegal?"
The article that I got that quote from provides a deeper look into the
use of the expression.
http://nohumanbeingisillegal.com/Home.html
b***@gmail.com
2018-05-25 04:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
We have citizens, immigrants (those with green cards) and aliens (every
one else).  The first two groups are implicitly in the country legally.
The latter may be here legally (through a non-immigrant visa) or illegally.
A subset of aliens are people who entered the country illegally and
people who entered the country legally but overstayed their visas and
remain illegally in the USA.  And yet, you want to call these people
"immigrants" as if they have green cards.  Sorry, your use of the word
is not accurate.  They are aliens.  They actions have out them into an
illegal status.
Yes, there is an implication that an immigrant intends to live in
another country permanently.
Defn: a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence
On the other hand, alien implies foreign allegiance.
Defn: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or
government
So, either term could be used depending upon the intent of the person
vis-a-vis permanent resident status.
How would you describe Rumple? He is legally resident by virtue of a
visa, but he retains an allegiance to his country of birth. He is
documented, but his act of remaining in this country is legal. If he
neglected to renew his visa, he would become undocumented, but would
still not be an illegal person.
Rumple lives in his comfortable rent controlled apartment in San Francisco. I don't think he cares much about what happens in England. But why not call a Spade a Spade? If immigrants are crossing the border illegally and jumping ahead in line of those waiting patiently for legal entry, I would call them illegal aliens who should be sent home on the first available bus.
Gary
2018-05-25 12:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
People cannot be illegal.
Unlawful presence is a violation of federal law.
Post by islander
I avoid using that term because it is insulting to a lot of people and
that interferes with rational conversation.
I don't like euphemisms.
People cannot be illegal. Their acts can be illegal. Better to avoid
the acrimony that results from labeling undocumented immigrants as
illegal. "Undocumented" is not a euphemism. It is an accurate
description of their status. Words have meaning.
Best description is the one we use to use. "Wet-backs".

"People cannot be illegal" ?

I guess it would be improper to refer to Al Capone as a "criminal".
After all -- it was only his acts that were criminal. Not him. There
are no laws saying "al capone" is a crime.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-05-14 15:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Sun, 13 May 2018 09:34:15 -0700, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by mg
It's hard to get people to listen to you if they think you're going to
deport their grandmother.
---------------
"Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States
By Philip E. Wolgin and Ann Garcia Posted on April 8, 2013, 1:42 pm
". . .Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) summed up the Republican predicament
best when he told the Washington Ideas Forum on November 15 that,
“It’s really hard to get people to listen to you on economic growth,
on tax rates, on health care, if they think you want to deport their
grandmother. . . .
As we move into the congressional debate on immigration reform, we
should remember that the political shifts that have opened a space for
reform—grounded in demographic changes—were not a phenomenon that
debuted in 2012. These changes began in the mid-1990s, when
anti-immigrant politics in California helped turn the state reliably
blue.
And as our nation moves toward a point where by 2043 we will have no
clear racial or ethnic majority,11 other states such as Arizona,
Texas, North Carolina, and even Georgia are also reaching demographic
tipping points. Whether or not these states turn blue in the future
has a lot to do with how politicians in both parties act and what they
talk about on the subject of immigration reform.
In this issue brief we review the past, present, and future of
immigration politics, as well as the changing demographics in key
states. . . ."
CONCLUSION
Even leaving California out of the picture, the states analyzed in
this issue brief comprise 137 electoral votes. In 2012 Democrats won
332 electoral votes to the Republicans’ 206, but if Arizona, Texas,
North Carolina, and Georgia were to shift Democratic, that would bring
the grand total of electoral votes to 412—an insurmountable margin.
Whether these states flip from red to blue is an open question. But
two things are abundantly clear: In each of these states, voters of
color, particularly Latino voters, are becoming an ever-larger share
of the total voting population. . . .
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/reports/2013/04/08/59580/immigration-is-changing-the-political-landscape-in-key-states/
Perhaps the GOP shouldn't be so hostile to Latino immigrants?
I wouldn't be surprised if the Pugs and the Dems do eventually become
engaged in a bidding war for the immigrant vote.
Actually, I suppose they are already in competition in Florida for the
Cuban immigrant vote. Come to think of it, who can forget all the
drama surrounding the 2000 election and the Florida vote. Did the
relatively small Cuban-American vote decide the outcome of the 2000
presidential election? Here's an article that says Gore got less than
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/05/elian-gonzalez-defeated-al-gore/377714/
I expect it can easily have the opposite effect, of turning
the people of "liberal" states more "conservative". I'll city
both of us as examples: basically liberal people who do see
"excessive" immigration as a threat to the livelihood of the
commoners already living here. Of course it's great for the
oligarchs because they get cheap labour so they can make
many thousands of dollars more per year by hiring the
cheap labour, but I'm not an oligarch, and I haven't gotten
the impression that you're one either.
Loading...