The Core Dilemma of Immigration

 

shutterstock_220487467On the Corner, Mark Krikorian writes:

[T]he disposition of the 12 million illegals already here is not the core dilemma we face. The core dilemma is how to we make sure we don’t end up with another 12 million illegal aliens. The very act of accepting the anti-borders crowd’s version of the “core dilemma” represents a surrender – once you’ve bought into their proposition, you’re left only to negotiate the price. (Fred Bauer makes a similar point about the “Amnesty Trap.”) As NR’s editorial put it: “Once the illegal population has measurably diminished, then we can have a discussion about what to do with the balance of the illegal population.” In other words, this is a secondary question, not the “core dilemma.” Until Republican politicians – all of them, not just Trump – internalize that fact, they’re going to remain at a disadvantage, always in the defensive when discussing illegal immigration. “Enforcement First” isn’t just a slogan – it’s a strategy.

This strikes me as correct: The United States — as well as several other countries — is perfectly capable of absorbing, assimilating, and integrating millions of immigrants, but there’s little point in doing so if we’re going to find ourselves in the same situation again in a few decades, if not sooner.

I’d be curious for others’ thoughts.

There are 51 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BD Member
    BD
    @

    National Review can propose all the plans they want.  As long as they continue to support/protect Republicans like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and John McCain, no effective immigration-enforcement policy will ever be implemented.

    • #1
  2. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Nonsense.  It is not that we have immigrants that is the problem.  The problem is that we give them free money and education while they’re here.  The problem is socialism, not too many immigrants.

    Immigration should be easy and free, so long as the individual is not a criminal or a threat.  People coming from certain countries that are enemies or harbor enemies should be severely limited (only those proven to help us should be admitted) and those from other places should be very liberally allowed.

    That’s what made this nation great.  We need to make it reasonable to follow laws on immigration and we need to end socialism.  Anything else is just demagoguery.

    • #2
  3. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing, assimilating, and integrating millions of immigrants, why not do it again in a few decades or sooner? We’re now below the replacement rate, so there are only three options: 1) Figure out a way to convince people to have more babies; 2) Accept more immigrants; or 3) Disappear.

    If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing and integrating all of these illegals, why — that’s great! Where’s the problem?

    (I suspect that when people recoil at the thought, there’s a suppressed premise: We can’t integrate people who begin their careers as Americans by breaking the law, particularly because this is unfair to people who don’t. Is this premise correct?)

    • #3
  4. KC Mulville Member
    KC Mulville
    @KCMulville

    It’s now common to start a discussion about some policy by saying, “never mind how we got here, what do we do now?” Which is logically no different than saying, “never mind about the leak, what do we do with all this water in the boat?”

    No. You stop the leak first, then you get rid of the water.

    The same mentality applies to entitlement spending. “Never mind” about how we make unrealistic promises, how do we pay for the ones we already made? The cause of the problem is never rectified, and is only hidden behind immediate fixes to the damage.

    The dysfunction is that the people who caused the problem in the first place are never held accountable. Democrats wanted a flow of new voters, and they got them – no matter how much burden it placed on the country – and now they demand that the country pay for what they started. Liberals have had a three-quarter century run where they’ve instituted policies regardless of the after-effects or cost, and thumped their chests about how much good they did. But now the costs, as they inevitably will, are catching up with them, and in response they’re trying to make other people pay.

    We must hold them accountable.

    • #4
  5. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    And for those saying that we can never end socialism, I submit that if we can’t stop it, we’re doomed regardless.  And if we can’t end public education, social security, etc. for illegals, then we will certainly never get the building permits for a wall past the EPA.

    The immigration issue is nothing short of traditional xenophobic pap for the masses.

    • #5
  6. Austin Murrey Member
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    I think Mark is correct.

    I’m perfectly fine with suggestions like guest worker visas but I have to confess I look very poorly on the idea of a path to citizenship; I’m not big on rewarding contempt for American law.

    The reality is you don’t have to break down doors and haul people off in the middle of the night which is the default suggestion of many open-borders advocates.

    Like noted monster Mitt Romney I think you can drive self-deportation by actually enforcing existing law and tightening border controls.

    • #6
  7. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    I wrote an essay on deportation and published it on the 24th. For those of you interested in the numbers the link gives you an idea of the time and effort it would take to try and deport 11 million people.

    “There is an Immigration Court Backlog Tool from Syracuse University on the web that contains a breakdown of the number of cases pending in immigration court.

    According to their numbers there are 469,911 cases pending on immigration that do not include criminal charges. They take an average of 673 days to process.

    If you include all charges; Criminal, National Security, and Terrorist charges there are 502,794 cases pending in immigration courts. There is no change in the number of days to process.

    Even if the court could adjudicate 500,000 cases a year it would take about 22 years to deport 11 million people. At the current average of 673 days to process 500,000 cases you are looking at 40 years to deport 11 million people.”

    • #7
  8. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    BD:National Review can propose all the plans they want. As long as they continue to support/protect Republicans like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and John McCain, no effective immigration-enforcement policy will ever be implemented.

    You know that Trumps new shift on immigration places him squarely in the same policy as Marco Rubio, right?

    • #8
  9. Austin Murrey Member
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Doug Watt:I wrote an essay on deportation and published it on the 24th. For those of you interested in the numbers the link gives you an idea of the time and effort it would take to try and deport 11 million people.

    “There is an Immigration Court Backlog Tool from Syracuse University on the web that contains a breakdown of the number of cases pending in immigration court.

    According to their numbers there are 469,911 cases pending on immigration that do not include criminal charges. They take an average of 673 days to process.

    If you include all charges; Criminal, National Security, and Terrorist charges there are 502,794 cases pending in immigration courts. There is no change in the number of days to process.

    Even if the court could adjudicate 500,000 cases a year it would take about 22 years to deport 11 million people. At the current average of 673 days to process 500,000 cases you are looking at 40 years to deport 11 million people.”

    Which is why self-deportation is the preferable option.

    If an illegal immigrant can’t earn a living, can’t get education, can’t get medical care and can’t find a place to live without legal immigration papers I don’t see why they’d stay.

    Although if I were in charge of ICE I’d have teams of agents following Democratic rallies to arrest self-confessed illegal aliens as soon as they got offstage for expedited processing back to country of origin.

    That’s always driven me bonkers: they’re admitting on camera breaking the law, often in announced speeches, and they’re not arrested.

    • #9
  10. BD Member
    BD
    @

    Jamie Lockett:

    BD:National Review can propose all the plans they want. As long as they continue to support/protect Republicans like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and John McCain, no effective immigration-enforcement policy will ever be implemented.

    You know that Trumps new shift on immigration places him squarely in the same policy as Marco Rubio, right?

    I’m not a Trump supporter.  And the existence of Trunp does not justify NR’s support for the Amnesty Brothers.

    • #10
  11. RyanFalcone Member
    RyanFalcone
    @RyanFalcone

    We may be capable of absorbing, assimilating and integrating immigrants but the fact remains that we are adopting a policy of refusal to do so on politically correct grounds.

    Also, several posts in this thread are confusing the distinct problems of legal and illegal immigration.

    We must end illegal immigration. We must realize that we are a distinct culture and that it is OK  and not racist, nationalist, or any other ist, to be so. We must define that culture and require immigrants to assimilate and integrate into it. Use that definition as the basis for vetting the immigrants who seek to come here and choosing those who can stay. We must hold immigrants accountable for assimilating and integrating into that defined culture.

    • #11
  12. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Living about 97 miles away from the US Mexican border and listening to the various claims about illegal immigration I decided to do a little research. Any non-citizen that is caught within a hundred miles of US borders without proper documentation and cannot prove they have been in the US for at least 14 days can be deported without a hearing. This why you see secondary border check points in Arizona at about 30 to 40 miles from the border. Everyone including US citizens must go through those checkpoints. Your vehicle is photographed to include the occupants.

    Part of the problem is that political appointees are running agencies such as the Border Patrol. They make extra-legal decisions concerning enforcement of the law not only at the border but also inland. Think of Lois Lerner and the IRS debacle.

    • #12
  13. Marion Evans Member
    Marion Evans
    @MarionEvans

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing, assimilating, and integrating millions of immigrants, why not do it again in a few decades or sooner? We’re now below the replacement rate, so there are only three options: 1) Figure out a way to convince people to have more babies; 2) Accept more immigrants; or 3) Disappear.

    If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing and integrating all of these illegals, why — that’s great! Where’s the problem?

    (I suspect that when people recoil at the thought, there’s a suppressed premise: We can’t integrate people who begin their careers as Americans by breaking the law, particularly because this is unfair to people who don’t. Is this premise correct?)

    Agree with all of this. But how do you convince people to have more babies? It is hard to do in a more materialistic society (more babies = fewer toys and vacations for the parents) and with more mothers wanting to work outside the home.

    • #13
  14. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    BD:

    Jamie Lockett:

    BD:National Review can propose all the plans they want. As long as they continue to support/protect Republicans like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and John McCain, no effective immigration-enforcement policy will ever be implemented.

    You know that Trumps new shift on immigration places him squarely in the same policy as Marco Rubio, right?

    I’m not a Trump supporter. And the existence of Trunp does not justify NR’s support for the Amnesty Brothers.

    Do you have a solution to the 12 million already here?

    • #14
  15. BD Member
    BD
    @

    Jamie Lockett:

    BD:

    Jamie Lockett:

    BD:National Review can propose all the plans they want. As long as they continue to support/protect Republicans like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and John McCain, no effective immigration-enforcement policy will ever be implemented.

    You know that Trumps new shift on immigration places him squarely in the same policy as Marco Rubio, right?

    I’m not a Trump supporter. And the existence of Trunp does not justify NR’s support for the Amnesty Brothers.

    Do you have a solution to the 12 million already here?

    I pretty much agree with what Austin Murrey has written here.

    • #15
  16. Rick Poach Member
    Rick Poach
    @RickPoach

    Tom Meyer, Ed.:The United States … is perfectly capable of … assimilating … millions of immigrants…

    No, we are not, and this is the rub, at least for me. We have one party in America who represent about half of the population. That party hates this country. They want this country constantly roiled by the division of identity politics, and they are succeeding. How many cities have been torched by the Left in the past two years? There will be active, aggressive movements to ensure that as many immigrant as possible who can be convinced not to assimilate, will not do so. This will lead to further balkanization which will further strengthen the Left’s identity politics strategy. Either this cycle is broken, or we get more intentional social unrest and with it more torched cities.

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.: We’re now below the replacement rate, so there are only three options:

    4) Immediately rethink all government programs which require a specific population level in order to be viable. Our government no longer represents the People, but rather the Programs. To government, we exist solely to service those programs with our sweat. Period. Full stop. And if the current human capital is not sufficient to sustain these Ponzi schemes, then bring in more anonymous, numbered bodies. There is something very, very soulless and inhumane about the whole thing. Immigrants exist for more than keeping our replacement rates up. I exist for more than the sustainability of a government program.

    • #16
  17. WI Con Member
    WI Con
    @WICon

    Doug Watt:I wrote an essay on deportation and published it on the 24th. For those of you interested in the numbers the link gives you an idea of the time and effort it would take to try and deport 11 million people.

    “There is an Immigration Court Backlog Tool from Syracuse University on the web that contains a breakdown of the number of cases pending in immigration court.

    According to their numbers there are 469,911 cases pending on immigration that do not include criminal charges. They take an average of 673 days to process.

    If you include all charges; Criminal, National Security, and Terrorist charges there are 502,794 cases pending in immigration courts. There is no change in the number of days to process.

    Even if the court could adjudicate 500,000 cases a year it would take about 22 years to deport 11 million people. At the current average of 673 days to process 500,000 cases you are looking at 40 years to deport 11 million people.”

    Very useful information to the discussion. Let’s say as part of any ‘agreement’ that said Illegal/Undocumented…aliens/residents… that the fine/penalty being bandied about was $25,000 instead of that $1,800 discussed during Gang of Eight. That that fine or payment of would be withheld from their paychecks like taxes until paid.

    The Mitt Romney self-deportation plan with added enticement or price of admission to consider. Make deciding to stay a serious decision.

    • #17
  18. Schwaibold Member
    Schwaibold
    @Schwaibold

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing, assimilating, and integrating millions of immigrants, why not do it again in a few decades or sooner? We’re now below the replacement rate, so there are only three options: 1) Figure out a way to convince people to have more babies; 2) Accept more immigrants; or 3) Disappear.

    I agree. Whatever form immigration reform eventually takes, there should be some mechanism for ‘adjusting’  (read: increasing) the flow of immigration.

    If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing and integrating all of these illegals, why — that’s great! Where’s the problem?

    (I suspect that when people recoil at the thought, there’s a suppressed premise: We can’t integrate people who begin their careers as Americans by breaking the law, particularly because this is unfair to people who don’t. Is this premise correct?)

    There should be some middle ground where illegal immigrants can be punished or sanctioned without breaking down doors and separating husbands from wives and parents from children. Starting with a temporary work permit, and ending with permanent residency without citizenship, and always subject to deportation for committing aggravated felonies.

    Fans of border enforcement should look at the ‘amnesty’ (residency without citizenship) of the millions of illegals currently in the U.S. as a bargaining chip. If it didn’t depend on SCOTUS, and wouldn’t probably require a Constitutional Amendment, trading permanent residency for an end to birthright citizenship would be a good deal.

    • #18
  19. Pelayo Member
    Pelayo
    @Pelayo

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing, assimilating, and integrating millions of immigrants, why not do it again in a few decades or sooner? We’re now below the replacement rate, so there are only three options: 1) Figure out a way to convince people to have more babies; 2) Accept more immigrants; or 3) Disappear.

    (I suspect that when people recoil at the thought, there’s a suppressed premise: … particularly because this is unfair to people who don’t. Is this premise correct?)

    Yes, when we are below replacement rate it makes sense to offset the impact by allowing immigration.  However, you miss some important details in making this broad statement.

    1. Our Labor Participation Rate is near 40-year lows.  Allowing even more immigration will make that worse at a time when too few jobs are being created. It would make more sense to slow down immigration until the Rate increases to a healthy level.
    2. Illegal immigration is never right.  I don’t care how far we drop below replacement rate.  We need to make informed decisions about who enters our Country and when.  Immigration needs to be handled legally and in a controlled fashion.
    3. Yes, it is unfair to the 1 million legal immigrants per year who are following the legal process and waiting many years to receive U.S. Citizenship.  Do you like it when you are waiting in a long line and someone just cuts in at the head of the line?
    • #19
  20. Jamie Lockett Member
    Jamie Lockett
    @JamieLockett

    WI Con:

    Doug Watt:I wrote an essay on deportation and published it on the 24th. For those of you interested in the numbers the link gives you an idea of the time and effort it would take to try and deport 11 million people.

    “There is an Immigration Court Backlog Tool from Syracuse University on the web that contains a breakdown of the number of cases pending in immigration court.

    According to their numbers there are 469,911 cases pending on immigration that do not include criminal charges. They take an average of 673 days to process.

    If you include all charges; Criminal, National Security, and Terrorist charges there are 502,794 cases pending in immigration courts. There is no change in the number of days to process.

    Even if the court could adjudicate 500,000 cases a year it would take about 22 years to deport 11 million people. At the current average of 673 days to process 500,000 cases you are looking at 40 years to deport 11 million people.”

    Very useful information to the discussion. Let’s say as part of any ‘agreement’ that said Illegal/Undocumented…aliens/residents… that the fine/penalty being bandied about was $25,000 instead of that $1,800 discussed during Gang of Eight. That that fine or payment of would be withheld from their paychecks like taxes until paid.

    The Mitt Romney self-deportation plan with added enticement or price of admission to consider. Make deciding to stay a serious decision.

    If you set the number that high wouldn’t it just encourage people to remain illegal?

    • #20
  21. Claire Berlinski, Ed. Editor
    Claire Berlinski, Ed.
    @Claire

    Marion Evans: But how do you convince people to have more babies?

    France has managed to boost its birthrate substantially: It’s now above the replacement rate. Pro-natalist policies are correlated with this; whether they’re causative, no one knows. But definitely, France has provided a lot of incentives: three years of paid parental leave, which can be used by mothers or fathers; subsidised, state-run childcare for children as soon as babies are three months old; full pay during the maternity period; generous grants to women who have children, especially multiple children (for the third child, you get €1,000 per month); free public transport for families; tax subsidies; pensions for mothers of multiple children; another bonus to pay for for extra-curricular activities; free entrance to many public facilities, etc. etc. Having babies here is cheap and easy.

    The problem with these schemes is obvious — what are they going to do when they run out of other people’s money? But there will, at least, be a next generation to be burdened with that problem.

    • #21
  22. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    Under immigration law having an anchor baby in the family is not an impediment to deportation. Families including the minor child have been deported. My assumption would be that the child once they turn 18 would be free to come back across the border as a US citizen.

    • #22
  23. Austin Murrey Member
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Schwaibold: There should be some middle ground where illegal immigrants can be punished or sanctioned without breaking down doors and separating husbands from wives and parents from children.

    We break down doors and separate husbands from wives and parents from children all the time when we send people to jail. When people choose to break the law they don’t get escape the consequences because they got married.

    The idea that it is somehow more heinous to do so when it involves illegal immigrant lawbreakers than for citizen lawbreakers is a bit strange to me.

    I thought Scott Walker put it quite well in 2015 during his abortive run for the GOP nomination. Via the Blaze:

    • #23
  24. Pelayo Member
    Pelayo
    @Pelayo

    I think any plan for Deportation should be secondary to stopping the influx of illegal immigrants.  Otherwise we are bailing water out of a boat that is leaking faster than we can bail the water out.  We need to look at any and all proposals for stopping the influx, including the border wall, E-Verify, whatever.  I don’t care if it is Trump’s idea or Marco Rubio’s idea.  We need to try something.  The Status Quo is unacceptable.

    The math on deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is irrefutable.  It is unrealistic to think we would ever do that and it is foolish to try.  I would focus on deporting any illegal immigrant found guilty of committing a crime.  I would also move to stricter enforcement of existing laws where it makes sense to do so.  If an illegal immigrant manages to fly below radar and stay out of trouble, good for them.  We can’t even keep track of the Islamic terrorists on our soil, no sense in looking for people that are generally harmless.

    • #24
  25. Hypatia Member
    Hypatia
    @Hypatia

    There were about 5 million illegals here in 1986.  ( at that time, they were mostly Irish.) Reagan granted amnesty and pouf! There were none.

    But 5 million more illegals quickly came in–and the flood has been increasing ever since.  (11million is clearly an understatement; they’ve been saying that figure for 20-30 yrs. now. )

    Can we deport 11 million, or 15 million, people? Yes.  6 million people use the NYC subways every day.  It’s not an unmanageable #.

    A record number of people have sneaked across the southern border this year, clearly in response to Omega’s DACA program, of which the message is, if you get in , you can stay in.

    any grant of amnesty is only an incentive to others to enter: if we granted it once, we might do it again!

    Trump is taking the temperature of his voters on this issue–and I hope he’ll see that enough of us have a raging fever that he’ll go no farther.

    Tell me: why do we allow the Left to get away with its catchphrases:

    “breaking Up families”? Let the whole family leave.

    “In the shadows”? I don’t think so, they march down the streets carrying foreign flags–and Mrs. BIll is gonna pay ’em to go get voters for her!

    “A better life”? Meaning making more money!  Since when is that such a laudable goal to the Left? This is not the Berlin Wall–Mexico is a neighboring democracy.

    Getting in that way is so easy that of course, lots of people of the Middle Eastern persuasion are traveling to various areas further south and riding in with that tide; see below*

    Oh I know, but the gov’t there is so awful. So corrupt. We-e-elllll…….don’t we usually say a people gets the government it deserves?

    And you know what?  That’s true of US, too.  On May 11,2016 I posted  about the use by the IRS of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers–for people who are making money here without SSNs.  That’s right; our gov’t is actively instructing people on how to work here illegally, and send money out of the country, and apply for tax credits (that’s usually the reason people using ITINs file at all) .  And–strictly confidential;IRS can’t tell Homeland Security where these illegals are.

    *Oh, and: if someone sneaks in and is “OTM”  (other than Mexican)–why, our gov’t has nice white vans ready to take those people INTO the country and drop ’em off with NO pretense of even setting a court date.   Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, worked for a company that DHS has contracted with to provide theses vans.

    You didn’t hear about that?  Or, you did but then it so quickly vanished from the news cycle that now you’re not even really sure you heard it?

    Good,  good: that’s the government you deserve at work.

    • #25
  26. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    KC Mulville:Which is logically no different than saying, “never mind about the leak, what do we do with all this water in the boat?”

    No. You stop the leak first, then you get rid of the water.

    Polling on Immigration issues is difficult to figure out because the wording of the questions matter. In broad strokes the public seems generally supportive of stopping illegal immigration and making sure that criminals get deported. After that there is a lot more flexibility in allowing the remaining 11 million to stay.

    It would seem that the popular opinion in the country is to stop the leak. Once that is stopped the public will support or not vigorously oppose most plans to deal with the current illegal population fairly.

    • #26
  27. Schwaibold Member
    Schwaibold
    @Schwaibold

    Austin Murrey:

    Schwaibold: There should be some middle ground where illegal immigrants can be punished or sanctioned without breaking down doors and separating husbands from wives and parents from children.

    We break down doors and separate husbands from wives and parents from children all the time when we send people to jail. When people choose to break the law they don’t get escape the consequences because they got married.

    The idea that it is somehow more heinous to do so when it involves illegal immigrant lawbreakers than for citizen lawbreakers is a bit strange to me.

    When I get a speeding ticket, I know the consequences for my crime – they’re printed clearly on the back of the ticket. If I don’t appear after 15 days, a warrant will be and someone WILL come knocking on my door.

    We (the U.S.) has been ignoring immigration law for, what, 50 years? We have generation after generation of immigrant (mostly from Mexico) that have been told, either explicitly or implicitly, that this law isn’t enforced. We need to change this policy, but an 11 million person manhunt, followed by deportation, isn’t the best first step.

    The real obstacle is nobody believes any new law or policy will actually be enforced for very long, if at all. That’s what happens when there is no rule of law, but instead a “phone and a pen”. And I thought it couldn’t happen here.

    • #27
  28. Brian Clendinen Member
    Brian Clendinen
    @BrianClendinen

    Claire Berlinski, Ed.:If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing, assimilating, and integrating millions of immigrants, why not do it again in a few decades or sooner? We’re now below the replacement rate, so there are only three options: 1) Figure out a way to convince people to have more babies; 2) Accept more immigrants; or 3) Disappear.

    If we’re perfectly capable of absorbing and integrating all of these illegals, why — that’s great! Where’s the problem?

    (I suspect that when people recoil at the thought, there’s a suppressed premise: We can’t integrate people who begin their careers as Americans by breaking the law, particularly because this is unfair to people who don’t. Is this premise correct?)

    I agree Clair but it is the fact that are Immigration policy are intentionally scewed (by former Senator Kennedy) so that poor small nations get a huge advantage over any large nation. I have always said we have a legal immigration problem not an illegal immigration problem. The Illegal immigration problem stems from the perversion of the law in the absurdity, red tape and complexity of trying to come here legally. If we had a well secured land border it would of maybe best case reduce illegals by 40%. Most people in the illegal category come here legally and just over stay.  I think green cards are the most sick perversion of all.  That idea your allowed to live here but not allowed to work makes me want to piss all over the politicians who thought of that idea. Having to get permission from the government to work is a fascist/communist policy. If you are allowed to live here that should automatically mean you are allowed to work. Maybe student visas should be a bit different but I don’t know if that is a good idea some one would have to convenience me and show me evidence.

    • #28
  29. Austin Murrey Member
    Austin Murrey
    @AustinMurrey

    Schwaibold: We (the U.S.) has been ignoring immigration law for, what, 50 years? We have generation after generation of immigrant (mostly from Mexico) that have been told, either explicitly or implicitly, that this crime isn’t enforced.

    Bernie Madoff started his Ponzi scheme at the latest in the early 1990’s – he was arrested in 2008. The fact that he’d gotten away with it for 20 years is not a valid defense.

    There’s a reason illegal immigrants flee from traffic accidents, provide false documents, don’t show up to immigration hearings when they are issued summons and live “in the shadows”: they know what they’re doing is illegal.

    • #29
  30. Schwaibold Member
    Schwaibold
    @Schwaibold

    Austin Murrey:

    Schwaibold: We (the U.S.) has been ignoring immigration law for, what, 50 years? We have generation after generation of immigrant (mostly from Mexico) that have been told, either explicitly or implicitly, that this crime isn’t enforced.

    Bernie Madoff started his Ponzi scheme at the latest in the early 1990’s – he was arrested in 2008. The fact that he’d gotten away with it for 20 years is not a valid defense.

    There’s a reason illegal immigrants flee from traffic accidents, provide false documents, don’t show up to immigration hearings when they are issued summons and live “in the shadows”: they know what they’re doing is illegal.

    I agree with you more than I disagree, but it’s a little more ambiguous than your example. Bernie Madoff wasn’t one of many investors doing something of which authorities with jurisdiction were aware, condoned, and even encouraged.

    • #30

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.