Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	We need to get clear about what we mean...
Date:	4/17/2016 4:31:08 PM

Thinking about immigration today, I guess I was prompted by Hound’s assertion that we should have a temporary moratorium on immigration… one of the things that The Donald has made part of his campaign.

Just what does that mean & how would you do it?

My sense of Illegal immigration is that this happens when people enter the country and upon entry state that they are here for a temporary visit (like a vacation or a work-related trip)… then they overstay and disappear from the view of the Immigration Service.    My question is how far would you go to stop that from happening?

For instance, would we stop foreign tourists from entering this country?  For those of us worrying about Islamic terrorists, would we seek to stop people based on their religious affiliation or just their ethnic identity?      For those of us who worry that immigrants won’t integrate into US culture, should we focus on stopping Hispanics but allow the Canadians & Europeans?   Would we stop foreign students from studying in the US?  How exactly would we verify the intentions of each person that crosses the border?   Will religion become a criteria for entering the US, and how would we verify that they were truthful about their religious beliefs?   Would an immigration moratorium be placed on people from every country in the world, or just those on a particular list?   If an immigration ban was just temporary, then what would be need to be in place so it could (eventually) be lifted?   What would happen if the temporary ban turned out to be a 20+ year ban because we never thought in advance what we wanted the new policy to be & couldn’t agree how to lift it?   Would that matter to anyone?

For me, the specific idea of a ban on Muslims or a general moratorium on all immigration is so problematic as to be almost impossible… mainly because of the unintended consequences here and abroad.   I would be strongly in favor of revising our immigration policies to include a path to citizenship, particularly for people in families who have now settled in this country… especially for children born here, even if their parents weren’t citizens.   As far as "bulding a wall & having Mexico pay for it" goes, this is a complete pipe dream... unworkable, ineffective and particularly misleading to the US public.   Other countries are not going to subsidize US immigration policy & enforcement operations... that is up to taxpayers here.     

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	We need to get clear about what we mean...
Date:	4/17/2016 7:24:16 PM (updated 4/17/2016 7:26:28 PM)

I believe when people talk about "immigration" they are referring to people who are here without authorization to be here, such as the instance of someone staying beyond the date authorized by their visa or work permit.  But the elephant in the room is the thousands who simply walk or ride across the border with no authorization whatsoever.

As to those who are here without authorization, I believe giving them a path to citizenship will create a massive bureaucratic mess and encourage even more to come across the border without authorization. Frankly, as we govern who is allowed in our country we need to profile, especially when it comes to potential terrorists.  Other than the occasional lunatic that goes off the deep end and shoots up a school or theater, the threat is middle easterners and Muslims.  Do I advocate barring ALL middle easterners and Muslims, of course not.  Do I advocate giving them a much closer examination before allowing them in, you bet I do.

And please note that not once (well, until now) did I use the term "illegal", although I would be willing to bet there are laws on the books that these people are violating.

Now for a curve ball.  What is the status of the Smith Marina? Is it open?  If so is it a departure from the usual Marina modus operandi, or same old same old?

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	We need to get clear about what we mean...
Date:	4/17/2016 10:03:33 PM

I started thinking about this.  I think when it first came up, it came up in the context of Syrian Refugees.  I think we should put a moritorium.  This doesn't mean that I would never allow Syrian Refugees, but we need a better means of screening them, and maybe other MIddle Eastern immigrants.  Of course, right away I think about Middle Easterns who may be coming in from other countries.  I don't think it is possible to make it completely safe, but I do think additional screening is required. 

Then there is the problem of the immigrants who come on work or study visas, or visitor visas.  In my mind, this is the group that is most likely to disappear.   A number of years ago, I had access to some analysis on cutting off foreign students, the vast majority of them were Asians, the concern being that they came to the U.S., worked on defense projects at major U.S. Universities, and then left to go back to China with their information.  The outcome of the analysis was that to bar foreign students would negatively impact a number of high value technology projects in U.S. simply because there are not enough U.S.students studying high technology graduate programs. 

A similar study would be required to look at work visas.

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	a swing and a miss...
Date:	4/18/2016 12:24:00 AM

...to that curve ball.  I don't know what's going on there exactly, and yes, I'd say it's looks like a pretty darn unique business venture.  Looks like the no wake zone has been expanded to me, but since I don't buy fuel on the lake very often, I haven't stopped by.   Are those condos on the 2nd floor or a personal residence?

Name:	copperline -	Reply
Subject:	We need to get clear about what we mean...
Date:	4/18/2016 11:05:56 AM

With all due respect, I don’t think anyone of us has a concrete idea of a policy that would work so we may be in the position of demanding change while having no idea what changes we want.     Increased security screenings seems like something we could agree on, but just how that would be implemented is pretty vague.   And the devil is always in the details.   At best, increased security screening would affect the risks of potential terrorists, but do nothing about the labor or population growth problems of an unrestricted border caused by living in the wealthiest country in a very globalized world.

Use of the word “moratorium” seems inappropriate to me on all counts though.   A moratorium would be a ban on immigration, or at least a major overhaul that starts with greatly reducing the flow of immigrants at the border.   How could you even do that?   For instance, two families of four show up at the border, one is planning a vacation to Disney World, and the other intends to stay permanently.   How do you tell them apart?   If we use a simple criteria like “what is the purpose of your visit?” …. How would you know someone was being truthful? 

When I enter another country, I’m usually asked the purpose of my visit, I tell them I’m a tourist, my passport is scanned and I’m given a visa stamp.   That stamp may be time limited, I suppose, but I’ve never been told that I had X number of days before I should be out of their country.    Is that what we should be doing at US border checkpoints?   And regarding people who overstay their visa limits, would we really support the significant increase in law enforcement/immigration personnel needed to search & expel them?

For all the unanswered questions, dealing with skilled workers & foreign students who would seek out jobs in the regular economy should be relatively easy.   Those folks will be on the books of employers & naturally creating a record of their presence here.   But it’s harder to imagine solutions that would have much impact on low-skilled, low income immigrants who find it easier to work ‘off the books’.   A poor person with limited language skills is just naturally going to have a lower social profile….harder to track & less likely to draw attention to themselves.

The truth is that this whole immigration issue is all about low income/unskilled economic immigrants and to a lesser extent similarly poverty stricken refugees from war-torn regions… with economic immigrants being the largest, most problematic group by far.    A good immigration policy would not want to limit the number of educated immigrants nor those with a high potential for economic success.    And I have not heard a plan, or a piece of a plan, that deals effectively with making that distinction.  

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Hodja - according to an article
Date:	4/18/2016 12:43:45 PM

in one of the lake magazines last year, they opened an ice cream place.  It was supposed to open last year, but never saw any evidence that it was open- building delay, I guess.  Don't know if it is open yet, as haven't been out in the boat.  They also sell gas.  As I understand it, the 2nd floor is a residence for the owners. 

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	We need to get clear about what we mean...
Date:	4/18/2016 1:07:04 PM

You are right.  Haven't heard any plans about how the screening would be done.  I think maybe proof of a job and proof of a place to live  might be a good place to start with work visas with follow up by ICE to make sure that they are working in that place.  I don't think they could do 100% check, but some level of follow up and with employers reporting if the person leaves the job.  Checking at the post office  and have to mail in a card signed by the employer, every 3 months? 

With vacation visas, perhaps a 10 day limit, with the visitor having to provide place where they will be staying.  (I've had to do this with visas before).  Some sort of tickler file established with Immigration that if the person is not shown to have exited by that day, some level of follow up.  Yes, we would have to expand the size of Immigration and come up with a good computer tracking system, but if we are serious about it, then we need to do what needs to be done. 

A friend, whose family had come to the U.S. as political refugees in the 1950s, told me that they had to provide the name of a sponsor, provide proof of a job, proof of a residence to come into the U.S. Of course, they wanted to be legal and they applied for citizenship as soon as they were eligible. 

I'm not sure how you screen illegals - as they come within the border, having passed no border checks.  I guess you start building big walls and big fences....