Legal and Illegal Immigration

Giant Octopodes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
1,215
Reaction score
612
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Not only STEM, that was an example. But whichever fields directly correlate to necessary training for current sectors of the job market with significant need. I don't want the government subsidizing education carte blanche and having folks spending 20 years in college getting their underwater basket weaving associates subsidized. I do, however, believe that we have a demonstrable dearth of engineers and are currently importing them heavily from other countries (India primarily though by no means exclusively), and that investment in its citizens to ensure they are relevant and competitive in the job market is one which offers substantial return and thus is fiscally responsible. Folks with greater education leading to the chance for a higher paying job pay more taxes in return, so it's a program that if done right over time pays for itself, and also significantly furthers the idea of the USA being the land of opportunity.

The idea being as well that the job market will continually evolve as new industries form or expand. We may need robot maintenance techs by the drove in 2050, and in that case I'd expect that trade school or degree program or whatever to be subsidized, so that anyone hungry for the opportunity to learn and contribute (including but not limited to all the truckers out of jobs due to automated vehicles at that time) has the chance to do so. It's a way of keeping our populace nimble, educated, and intelligent. But any further thoughts on this side of things I'll put in the education thread or something like that, this thread is obviously more focused on the later bullet of removing immigration caps. Which, regardless of the specifics of the education which is subsidized, what are your thoughts on the rest of it?
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,670
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
Close borders to all illegal immigration.

Make legal immigration easier for those that follow the rules.

Ban immigrants from ever being able to receive taxpayer $ in any form.

Require immigrants to have the resources to return home if they can not or do not support themselves.
 

Steve-o

TACOS
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
26,382
Reaction score
922
Points
113
Location
L-dot-A-dot
Close borders to all illegal immigration.

Make legal immigration easier for those that follow the rules.

Ban immigrants from ever being able to receive taxpayer $ in any form.

Require immigrants to have the resources to return home if they can not or do not support themselves.
If we do #2, we aren't going to have to worry much about #1 anymore.

And #3??? They come here and they pay taxes, they're eligible for the benefits and safety nets they paid for.
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
13,249
Reaction score
4,849
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
If we do #2, we aren't going to have to worry much about #1 anymore.

And #3??? They come here and they pay taxes, they're eligible for the benefits and safety nets they paid for.

Morally no one should be forced to pay for nor receive number 3.
 

deec77

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
17,548
Reaction score
8,894
Points
113
A moral society isn't cool with people dying in the streets.
No we’re not how about worrying about the US citizens dying in the streets right now before worrying about millions from other countries..... I have zero problem with letting those who applied and waited in line and did it the right way.... what happens to those that did it right when millions are jumping the line ...

~Dee~
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
8,670
Reaction score
2,763
Points
113
Location
Michigan
If we do #2, we aren't going to have to worry much about #1 anymore.

And #3??? They come here and they pay taxes, they're eligible for the benefits and safety nets they paid for.
I didn’t say make it easy, I said make it easier.

And there’s absolutely zero wrong about requiring people come here without expectation for handouts. Somehow you think that because they pay taxes they are eligible to be paid freebies? I also pay taxes I don’t receive a dime from the government. Immigrants will benefit from infrastructure and the police and everything else that self providing citizens receive but with regard to taxpayer handouts will be on the same level as me: none.

If I pay taxes (and I do) and I am ineligible for handouts then why would an immigrant who chose to come here be eligible?

Don't come for handouts and prove it.

Simple.

And people will still come. And they will take care of themselves as we do.

As it should be.

Ilegal immigration as a voter block is immoral.
 
Last edited:
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
13,249
Reaction score
4,849
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH

Unusual Supreme Court Majority Rules in Favor of Guatemalan Who Entered U.S. Illegally​

At issue was how the government notified immigrants of deportation hearings; role of the article ‘a’ possibly has far-reaching consequences​



im-332208

Thursday’s decision marked the second time in three years the Supreme Court found the government failed to follow certain deportation procedures.​

PHOTO: STEFANI REYNOLDS/GETTY IMAGES
By
Jess Bravin
April 29, 2021 8:52 pm ET


WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court opened a door Thursday that could let thousands of noncitizens avoid deportation, ruling 6-3 that federal agencies failed to properly notify individuals about the time and place of removal proceedings.

The decision gathered an unusual coalition behind Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion: Conservatives who focus on legislative text—Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett —joined liberals Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who tend to read ambiguous provisions in immigrants’ favor. In dissent were three conservatives who typically side with law enforcement, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh.

The case marked the second time in three years the court found the government failed to follow deportation procedures set forth in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

The law states that the government must serve “a notice to appear” with essential details on individuals it seeks to deport. “These include the nature of the proceedings against the alien, the legal authority for the proceedings, the charges against the alien, the fact that the alien may be represented by counsel, the time and place at which the proceedings will be held, and the consequences of failing to appear,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

The last element carried particular significance, because noncitizens with clean records who demonstrate continued presence for a specified period, typically 10 years, can qualify to remain in the U.S. if deportation would cause hardship to their children or other relatives who are American citizens or lawful residents.

Under the 1996 law, that clock stops running after a notice to appear is served—a change intended to prevent noncitizens from delaying their proceedings in hope of getting over the 10-year line. The government, faced with problems in managing the immigration caseload, adopted the practice of sending notices to appear without a time and place for the hearing, then sending subsequent documents when proceedings were scheduled.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled that the clock didn’t stop until the noncitizen was notified of the time and place of the hearing. Thursday’s decision took the next step, holding that the pertinent information must be contained in a single notice, rather than sent piecemeal.
That conclusion rested on defining an irreducibly short word: the indefinite article “a.” Federal appeals courts had been divided over whether it meant a single document or could apply to a series of notifications.

“At first blush, a notice to appear might seem to be just that—a single document containing all the information an individual needs to know about his removal hearing,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “But, the government says, supplying so much information in a single form is too taxing. It needs more flexibility, allowing its officials to provide information in separate mailings (as many as they wish) over time (as long as they find convenient).”

Had Congress omitted the indefinite article and simply required notice to appear, the outcome could have been different. That is because the term notice “can refer to either a countable object (‘a notice,’ ‘three notices’) or a noncountable abstraction (‘sufficient notice,’ ‘proper notice’),” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

But the word “a” indicated that Congress envisioned a single document. After all, he wrote, “someone who agrees to buy ‘a car’ would hardly expect to receive the chassis today, wheels next week, and an engine to follow.”

Writing for the dissenters, Justice Kavanaugh said the decision was perplexing. “The statute nowhere says that written notice must be provided in a single document,” he wrote.
Besides, “ordinary meaning and literal meaning are two different things. And judges interpreting statutes should follow ordinary meaning, not literal meaning,” he wrote. In ordinary parlance, he argued, “the word ‘a’ is sometimes used to modify a single thing that must be delivered in one package, but it is sometimes used to modify a single thing that can be delivered in multiple installments, rather than in one installment,” like an author who submits a manuscript to an editor in chapters, “one at a time, as they are ready.”

Although hinging on a tiny word, the case carries significance for thousands of noncitizens who were called to removal proceedings before meeting the 10-year threshold but who since have passed it. Ben Winograd, an immigration attorney in Washington, said the decision would apply to pending deportation cases. Unclear, he said, is whether “immigrants with final deportation orders get their cases reopened based on this issue.”

Thursday’s case concerned Agusto Niz-Chavez, who came from Guatemala in 2005 and later settled in Detroit. “He currently lives with and is the primary breadwinner for his long-time partner and their three young U.S.-citizen children, two of whom have significant health issues,” his Supreme Court petition says. He has no criminal record apart from two misdemeanors for driving without a license, it says.

In March 2013 the Department of Homeland Security served Mr. Niz-Chavez a notice to appear stating his hearing would take place on “a date to be set at a time to be set.” Two months later, the department sent him another notice with a date in June 2013. Mr. Niz-Chavez acknowledged he entered the U.S. unlawfully but sought to remain because he feared being tortured if returned to Guatemala. At a hearing in 2017, an immigration judge rejected the claim and ordered him removed.

Mr. Niz-Chavez then sought a hardship exception to remain in the U.S., but the Justice Department’s immigration courts found that he didn’t meet the 10-year threshold because of the notices sent in 2013. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled for the government, concluding that multiple documents could suffice as a notice to appear.

“Not to be cheesy, but the case really stands for the idea that the government isn’t above the law,” said David Zimmer, who argued both Mr. Niz-Chavez’s case and its 2018 predecessor. “Congress gave pretty clear instructions and the government just decided it didn’t want to do it.”
Mr. Niz-Chavez isn’t guaranteed permission to remain in the U.S., but “he’s able to apply for cancellation of removal, and hopefully he’ll get it,” Mr. Zimmer said.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
34,860
Reaction score
6,029
Points
113
Age
73
Last edited:

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
690
Reaction score
692
Points
93
As it should be, Harris would be given extra protection as Vice President. She would be able to observe the situation at the border while still maintaining distance from the immigrants and those who care for them. She would be surrounded by Secret Service (all of whom I'm sure have received Covid shots the same as she has) who would insure that this happens. She could also garb herself in head-to-toe protective gear.

All those who are directly caring for the immigrants either on the border or in the various locations where they are being sent do not have these same luxuries. So, her words tell me that the situation at Camp Covid is so bad that she fears for her health despite all the precautions she could take. Or, she is just using Covid as an excuse and doesn't care enough to visit the border and/or doesn't want to call any more attention to how bad the situation is.
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
4,329
Reaction score
1,853
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
Just spitballing here but do you thibnk that VP Harris being put in charge of both space force and the border is a coinkydink. You don't even need cages in space.:coffee:
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
13,249
Reaction score
4,849
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
 
OP
johnlocke

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
13,249
Reaction score
4,849
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
690
Reaction score
692
Points
93
So, it seems like they have cleared up an area that was so bad that Harris couldn't go there due to Covid concerns by sending the immigrants to various areas within the US.

Reminds me of when I instructed my children to go upstairs and clean up their toy room. After about 15 minutes, I went outside to get the mail before I went to check on them. That's when I saw toys flying through the air because my children had decided to clean that toy room by opening a window and just relocating the toys to the banks of snow that were in my front yard.

In both cases, one problem was solved by spreading the problem elsewhere. However, I didn't have to worry that my children may be spreading Covid.
 
Top