Republican obsession against immigration

[TreeFrogTrader]

"There are zero other countries in the World allowing it except the USA."

You got to be kidding. There are numerous countries around the world facing illegal immigration problems. The US is by far not the only country dealing with this. And some countries on the face of the earth are facing worse problems than the U.S. in the handling the illegal immigrants in terms of housing, food, extradition, etc.

There is a big difference though.

Those countries do not have open borders as a national policy as the United States now has. They are resisting/opposed to open borders but are not able to keep everyone out.

"Open Borders" is not something we are "dealing with." It is the goal of the ruling party in the U.S.

 

[gwb-trading]

There is a big difference though.

Those countries do not have open borders as a national policy as the United States now has. They are resisting/opposed to open borders but are not able to keep everyone out.

"Open Borders" is not something we are "dealing with." It is the goal of the ruling party in the U.S.

The U.S. does not have open borders. The majority of the illegal immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. are captured near the border and detained. That's some fine narrative you got there.

 

[ids]

What? Seriously?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

The U.S. does not have open borders. The majority of the illegal immigrants attempting to enter the U.S. are captured near the border and detained. That's some fine narrative you got there.

Heh. Detained, then released into the country and face almost zero chances of deportation unless a warrant is discovered or something like that.

If you are in El Salvador and want to enter the United States you do not need to hide from anything or anyone if you do not have a criminal history that can be discovered. Just walk in. Do not flee. Just ask people where the nearest border patrol person is to surrender yourself. Then wait for your bus to take you to whatever city you want to go to.

 

[VicBee]

I'm glad to have opened this discussion which, I hope, will remain civil.

I wanted to show that the US is far from being the country with the highest immigration per capita, legal or not. As was pointed out, the US has a high proportion of illegal immigration. Some like to emphasize that it's illegal, essentially blaming the immigrants, while in Europe they are more honest by calling them refugees, even if that immigration is froth with abuse.

I believe very few who feel safe and have work opportunities want to leave their country of origin. This was the case for our forefathers and it's also the case for those coming to America today, legally or not.
I'm not a proponent of illegal immigration, but I strongly believe in the freedom of movement. The reason so many cross the border illegally is because the path to legal immigration is so convoluted -sometimes in excess of 15 years and major expenses to get a visa- that most only see closed doors and are willing to risk everything, including their lives, to make it to America.

I'm aware of the push towards a point system, similar to the Australian immigration process. They evaluate their labor shortage and encourage that specific type of immigrants, usually skilled blue collar labor.
I'm not a proponent of that system, primarily because America has demonstrated over and over that great accomplishments can be achieved from immigrants who started with nothing more than their will to succeed. In my opinion, pre selection is elitist, drains developing countries of their skilled labor and won't stem the influx of people fleeing violence and/or poverty in their country.

On the other hand, the US could do far more by applying carrot and stick to countries known for their violence towards their population. We could do much more to prevent weapons from falling in gang hands, or stimulate local economies by providing easier access to the US market. Increase in national wealth will decrease the level of illegal immigration.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I'm glad to have opened this discussion which, I hope, will remain civil.

I wanted to show that the US is far from being the country with the highest immigration per capita, legal or not. As was pointed out, the US has a high proportion of illegal immigration. Some like to emphasize that it's illegal, essentially blaming the immigrants, while in Europe they are more honest by calling them refugees, even if that immigration is froth with abuse.

I believe very few who feel safe and have work opportunities want to leave their country of origin. This was the case for our forefathers and it's also the case for those coming to America today, legally or not.
I'm not a proponent of illegal immigration, but I strongly believe in the freedom of movement. The reason so many cross the border illegally is because the path to legal immigration is so convoluted -sometimes in excess of 15 years and major expenses to get a visa- that most only see closed doors and are willing to risk everything, including their lives, to make it to America.

Can you

I'm aware of the push towards a point system, similar to the Australian immigration process. They evaluate their labor shortage and encourage that specific type of immigrants, usually skilled blue collar labor.
I'm not a proponent of that system, primarily because America has demonstrated over and over that great accomplishments can be achieved from immigrants who started with nothing more than their will to succeed. In my opinion, pre selection is elitist, drains developing countries of their skilled labor and won't stem the influx of people fleeing violence and/or poverty in their country.

On the other hand, the US could do far more by applying carrot and stick to countries known for their violence towards their population. We could do much more to prevent weapons from falling in gang hands, or stimulate local economies by providing easier access to the US market. Increase in national wealth will decrease the level of illegal immigration.

Howz Kamala's "addressing the root causes" approach coming along? And how much has it reduced immigration at the border?

Oh, I see. She sent the usual dictators a big checks. And went to a couple of the Central American countries one day. And that is it I guess. Her work is completed.

 

[gwb-trading]

I'm glad to have opened this discussion which, I hope, will remain civil.

I wanted to show that the US is far from being the country with the highest immigration per capita, legal or not. As was pointed out, the US has a high proportion of illegal immigration. Some like to emphasize that it's illegal, essentially blaming the immigrants, while in Europe they are more honest by calling them refugees, even if that immigration is froth with abuse.

I believe very few who feel safe and have work opportunities want to leave their country of origin. This was the case for our forefathers and it's also the case for those coming to America today, legally or not.
I'm not a proponent of illegal immigration, but I strongly believe in the freedom of movement. The reason so many cross the border illegally is because the path to legal immigration is so convoluted -sometimes in excess of 15 years and major expenses to get a visa- that most only see closed doors and are willing to risk everything, including their lives, to make it to America.

I'm aware of the push towards a point system, similar to the Australian immigration process. They evaluate their labor shortage and encourage that specific type of immigrants, usually skilled blue collar labor.
I'm not a proponent of that system, primarily because America has demonstrated over and over that great accomplishments can be achieved from immigrants who started with nothing more than their will to succeed. In my opinion, pre selection is elitist, drains developing countries of their skilled labor and won't stem the influx of people fleeing violence and/or poverty in their country.

On the other hand, the US could do far more by applying carrot and stick to countries known for their violence towards their population. We could do much more to prevent weapons from falling in gang hands, or stimulate local economies by providing easier access to the US market. Increase in national wealth will decrease the level of illegal immigration.

I have previously outlined my proposals to address illegal immigration and the crisis at the border multiple times. Nobody on this forum wants to have a serious discussion on how to address illegal immigration; all they want to do is sling mud and one liners. I expect I am the only one in this forum who has actually sent correspondence to elected government representatives regarding illegal immigration.

Links to my previous proposals on addressing illegal immigration can be found below:

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/general-election-2020.342033/page-36#post-5231830

https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...nts-overwhelm-city.370176/page-2#post-5692443

 

[FortuneTeller]

I'm glad to have opened this discussion which, I hope, will remain civil.

I wanted to show that the US is far from being the country with the highest immigration per capita, legal or not. As was pointed out, the US has a high proportion of illegal immigration. Some like to emphasize that it's illegal, essentially blaming the immigrants, while in Europe they are more honest by calling them refugees, even if that immigration is froth with abuse.

I believe very few who feel safe and have work opportunities want to leave their country of origin. This was the case for our forefathers and it's also the case for those coming to America today, legally or not.
I'm not a proponent of illegal immigration, but I strongly believe in the freedom of movement. The reason so many cross the border illegally is because the path to legal immigration is so convoluted -sometimes in excess of 15 years and major expenses to get a visa- that most only see closed doors and are willing to risk everything, including their lives, to make it to America.

I'm aware of the push towards a point system, similar to the Australian immigration process. They evaluate their labor shortage and encourage that specific type of immigrants, usually skilled blue collar labor.
I'm not a proponent of that system, primarily because America has demonstrated over and over that great accomplishments can be achieved from immigrants who started with nothing more than their will to succeed. In my opinion, pre selection is elitist, drains developing countries of their skilled labor and won't stem the influx of people fleeing violence and/or poverty in their country.

On the other hand, the US could do far more by applying carrot and stick to countries known for their violence towards their population. We could do much more to prevent weapons from falling in gang hands, or stimulate local economies by providing easier access to the US market. Increase in national wealth will decrease the level of illegal immigration.

The path to legal immigration is just that. It is legal. How long does it take for the illegals to become legal after they come here as illegals? How much more money does this cost the American government?

A long time ago when immigrants came to America, did they come as illegals?

 

[VicBee]

A long time ago when immigrants came to America, did they come as illegals?

It wasn't so long ago, and at that time anyone who made the trip over was considered legal.

The elephant in the room is that underlying this point isn't legal versus illegal, it's white versus brown, it's European versus Latinos. Trump, the architect of our racist framework, welcomed white western immigration; he railed against Latino or Asian immigrants.

 

[Cuddles]

It wasn't so long ago, and at that time anyone who made the trip over was considered legal.

The elephant in the room is that underlying this point isn't legal versus illegal, it's white versus brown, it's European versus Latinos. Trump, the architect of our racist framework, welcomed white western immigration; he railed against Latino or Asian immigrants.

you may as well be talking apples and oranges if all "whitey" had to do was sneak into the country to get citizenship back in the day.