boots11234
Footballguy
Maybe this is because congress hasn’t done its job and addressed this problem. Wasn’t too long ago the talking point was: manufactured crisis.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Undocumented Immigrant Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
The crisis was manufactured...it also became worse when nothing was done by the GOP and Trump. Its on him.
gianmarco
Footballguy
whoknew
Footballguy
I have to admit, this is not a headline I ever expected to read:
Appeals court rules Trump administration must provide hygiene products at migrant facilities
Appeals court rules Trump administration must provide hygiene products at migrant facilities
Children of US troops born overseas will no longer get automatic American citizenship, Trump administration says
Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Wednesday.
Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be "residing in the United States," and therefore would be automatically given citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship.
The change in policy was first reported by San Francisco Chronicle reporter Tal Kopan.
According to USCIS, previous legislation also explicitly said that spouses of service members who were living outside the U.S. because of their spouses were considered residing in the U.S., but "that no similar provision was included for children of U.S. armed forces members in the acquisition of citizenship context is significant."
That is one of the reasons why USCIS has now decided that those children are not considered to be residing in the U.S., and therefore will not be automatically given citizenship. Instead, they will fall under INA 322, which considers them to be residing outside the U.S. and requires them to apply for naturalization.
Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Wednesday.
Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be "residing in the United States," and therefore would be automatically given citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship.
The change in policy was first reported by San Francisco Chronicle reporter Tal Kopan.
According to USCIS, previous legislation also explicitly said that spouses of service members who were living outside the U.S. because of their spouses were considered residing in the U.S., but "that no similar provision was included for children of U.S. armed forces members in the acquisition of citizenship context is significant."
That is one of the reasons why USCIS has now decided that those children are not considered to be residing in the U.S., and therefore will not be automatically given citizenship. Instead, they will fall under INA 322, which considers them to be residing outside the U.S. and requires them to apply for naturalization.
timschochet
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
From a different article at The Hill
Not sure I get the third category though I assume this is what applies there?
But even so still don't get what is changing. I'll leave the "why" for others.
msommer
Footballguy
Max Power
Footballguy
The county is prosecuting them at the state level for their local charge. They are allowed bail until their hearing and it's this county'policy to not alert or hold them for ICE if they are illegals. Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Max Power
Footballguy
That is the county executive's stance. He isn't stopping ICE from getting these guys, he just won't hold them for ICE to come get them. It's actively looking the other way IMO.
timschochet
Footballguy
I’d like to suggest a reasonable compromise:
If someone commits a violent crime, local authorities should cooperate with ICE: punish and then deport.
If there is no violent crime, local authorities should not cooperate with ICE.
Fair?
Max Power
Footballguy
It is better than what they are doing now, so I'd agree to it. However, I think local authorities should alert ICE any time someone is in their custody who is undocumented.
JohnnyU
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
These discussions absolutely fascinate me. I can't get over the fact that the "small government" types basically approve of their local taxes subsidizing and doing the job to cover the inadequacies of said "small government". They are in favor of their local taxes going to do the job their federal taxes are supposed to be doing. Why aren't they pissed about that?
timschochet
Footballguy
There’s no law on the books that requires state and local authorities to assist federal authorities with undocumented immigrants.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
This isnt really a thing. Asking local government to hold a criminal so that the federal government can scoop said criminal isnt a "big government" issue. It is actually lowering overall expenses. Unless you think it is cheaper to catch criminals than interagency exchange them.The Commish said:
Basically you are arguing that people should be in favor of causing the federal government to spend more money to catch a criminal on the streets in order to save their local government a fraction of that cost.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
There’s quite a bit more to it than that, and these requests by the federal agency cost local and state governments huge amounts of money.
The Commish
Footballguy
No...I'm expecting my federal tax dollars to go to doing it's job. If you want to argue that immigration issues should be pushed to the states, that's one thing. Or if you want to say that the federal government doesn't have the funds to do what the law requires, that is also a valid discussion to have. But as it is right now, that's the job of ICE. Our federal tax dollars pay for that. I don't want my local tax dollars going to the things the federal government are supposed to be doing. That's the very definition of federal government overreach. I want my local tax dollars going to my kids' schools, our infrastructure and helping small businesses grow. My local taxes should not be going to the bloat of the federal government because they can't do their jobs efficiently.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Not really. Not digging too far into this, but the first state that popped up on google was NC. The costs per day range from 32 to 258 in local jails. So even if we use 258 for 48 hours it is ridiculous to conclude that ICE having to pursue said criminal, possibly all over the country, would be cheaper than that. It is also ridiculous to conclude that said criminal would have zero further costs on the local government, since as you well know criminals tend to get in trouble with the law more than just once.
He didnt make an immigration enforcement costs too much overall argument. Which i think we would all agree there are plenty of places to trim the fat.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I’m not just talking about the costs per day of jailing people. This is a much more complex discussion than that.
You're asking local and state governments to hold people for indefinite periods of time on suspicion of either a crime or a civil violation. In many cases, that’s a constitutional violation. It’s a civil rights case. And these detentions happen for longer than 48 hours in many cases.
Whom do you think pays up when those cases get brought by people detained by the state for the feds? It ain’t the feds. And there are lots of them. Because the entire system is pretty messed up and poorly run.
Every single one of those cases risks dozens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of local money. It’s a huge drain on state and local resources.
timschochet
Footballguy
It’s like somebody needs an operation, and you guys are arguing over which is better: Advil or Tylenol. I get bogged down in these arguments too, but the fact is there are 14 million undocumented people in this country, and ICE isn’t going to solve that, and local authorities working with ICE isn’t going to solve that.
What we need is comprehensive reform: the violent criminals get punished and then deported (and everybody can work together on that) and the rest get a path to citizenship. And then we can combine that with a further combination of more open immigration and more security at our borders.
Its the only way. Otherwise this just goes on and on and nobody will ever be satisfied.
What we need is comprehensive reform: the violent criminals get punished and then deported (and everybody can work together on that) and the rest get a path to citizenship. And then we can combine that with a further combination of more open immigration and more security at our borders.
Its the only way. Otherwise this just goes on and on and nobody will ever be satisfied.
msommer
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Yeah no....neither of you are reading what I posted. I don't want my local tax dollars going to pay for things the federal government is supposed to be doing. It's not an issue of approach. I'm not trying to solve the perceived problem. I am simply saying the federal government needs to keep its hands off my local tax money so that money can go to the things it's intended to go towards.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Federal overreach would be a different argument i feel. If we are discussing the feds making it a forced requirement to always have to detain thats a very different thing. Obviously that isnt the case since plenty of places dont hold people for ICE.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Thats not what you posted. You tried to paint people that support inter agency cooperation and are opposed to big government as hypocritical because it means that local tax dollars get spent enforcing immigration.
Should schools refuse any federal dollars then? How about infrastructure? Should local businesses refuse snap purchases then?
If you truly support complete separation of all levels of govt that is one thing. It is odd, but ok. But you were basically creating a fictitious gotcha argument.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
They get to stay. And so do their family members. And if they try to remove them, outrage, human chains, protests, because the govt is trying to separate families. Rinse repeat.
timschochet
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
I actually agree with you on this point. Sometime federal and state/local should work together. Sometimes they shouldn’t. It all depends on the situation. Certainly as a general rule, when it comes to fighting crime and keeping this nation safe, they should work together. I support Sanctuary Cities because of the specific issue of undocumented immigration, not because of some general principle about who should work with whom.
msommer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
This is a crucial issue that needs to be chrystal clear and have well defined rules to have any hope of bipartisan support
timschochet
Footballguy
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
There are approximately 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. employing approximately 800,000 sworn officers. If each Officer apprehended one illegal per month, so say one shift out of 20 each month, we would have the problem licked in its entirety in less than two years. The dauntingly big number argument you make is belied by the equally dauntingly big number of law enforcement personnel. The scope of the problem is hardly beyond the capabilities of law enforcement, not remotely so. The bottleneck in processing is not law enforcement, it is judicial. Processing constitutionally takes time. While that time is passing these folks are released again and many need to be caught again. That catch and release, that failure to cooperate and comply, that takes your 14 million figure and raises it a magnitude or so. Then, well maybe then it is not just beyond judicial's ability to address but then it does start to stress law enforcement resources.
timschochet
Footballguy
Oh I never meant to suggest it was beyond our capability to arrest and deport every one of these people. We would simply have to turn into a police state.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
msommer
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I'm not seeing the distinction. I wasn't attempting to point out hypocrisy, though it's an interesting perspective. My point is primarily that those who typically claim they are for smaller government are typically the same ones who cheer on local authorities being used to do federal tasks. That's completely illogical IMO. I'm not sure if they've thought about it that way, ever. If they haven't, it would be hard for me to label them a hypocrite. The fascination from my perspective was the completely illogical position they've established and wondering if they even realize it or not.
My larger point is that we as an electorate should not tolerate our local tax dollars being put to federal use and we need to hold those official accountable at the local level and tell them we won't stand for it. It's a significant drain, especially when we already have federal tax dollars going to address the issue. As the law is written today, border security and immigration is the job of the federal government funded through federal tax dollars. Until that changes, the federal government has no business asking us to pay them with our local tax dollars to do that job.
Hope that's clearer.
The Commish
Footballguy
Wanted to address this separately. We pay federal taxes understanding that the Department of Education plays a role in this country's education system. I don't have a problem with that. I'm trying to think of a reason why you'd think I should have a problem with that or how that particular example is similar to the immigration issue, but that's my answer. Same holds true for infrastructure. We pay taxes to the government understanding the Department of Transportation plays a role in the country's infrastructure. As long as the funds are being used for those purposes, I don't have a problem. As for local businesses, it's my belief they can accept whatever form of compensation they choose. If they want to accept bitcoin, trades, money, SNAP, exchange labor hours for goods, whatever, that's their choice.
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Wife and I are watching designated survivor currently. Season 3, episode 6 was fascinating to me considering the timing of what just happened with the medical deferment issue.
Obviously these weren't real polls in the show, but I did feel that they reflected accurately how things would go from a popular perspective.
Quick version to anybody not watching...Kid from guatemala needed a kidney transplant. Came across border and went to a hospital. They put him on dialysis. He was going to die without a transplant. Turns out his dad was a match. So basically it boiled down to money. Public supported overwhelmingly not letting him die so he got the transplant. Polling in the show had public support not in favor of letting him and his family stay though once the immediate emergency was handled. So they began deportation proceedings. This was all happening on eve of election so the politicians in show were just reacting to public.
Obviously way more to the episode, but I found it very fitting and obviously the coming across the border for medical treatment is starting to become a more common thing.
msommer
Footballguy
Dunno. Not real keen on trying to make policy on the basis of anecdotes.
IMHO, the term path to citizenship is vague and no one currently knows what it means. For some, like tim, I suspect it (deep dpwn) means general amnesty (with the violent offender caveat). For others it might mean that if you can support yourself and your family, pay your taxes and generally contribute to society, then you can stay. For yet others it would be an opportunity to create hoops to jump through of varying relevance ("How American are you?") to ensure as few as possible are able to comply/complete the path.
Without such a discussion I doubt any real progress will be made on immigration which no doubt will add pressure for the more xenophobic to act out (and, potentially in response, for the most accomodating to create paralel societies where undocumanted can move around in the shadows).
I can see the anchor baby rule as being an obstacle to taking this discussion as it creates a kind of loophole limbo where you could never be deported, regardless of your failures on the path to citizenship because of your children. It (the anchor baby rule) probably should be included in the overall path to citizenship discussion
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Local, state, and federal obviously do not have a 100% clear separation. As a blanket argument it is absurd. Can you imagine a local police force not detaining somebody that was involved in 9/11 because they refused to spend a dime on helping federal agencies? Just absurd.
From a cost standpoint if you have a local agency that has a person that a federal agency is trying to catch detained already, the logical argument is that it would save taxpayers overall for that person to be transferred to federal custody rather than released. Same with a federal agency that caught somebody that was wanted for a local crime.
It is a completely separate argument to say you disagree with immigration enforcement, therefore localities shouldn't spend any money on it. That's a fine position. But to say that localities shouldn't spend any money on federal requests, but then also receive federal funds is just strange.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Well certainly in some jurisdictions it may be less likely than others, and as the population goes down it becomes less likely. That said, my experience in a metro area with a substantial illegal population is that each officer could, for a time, address nearly one a shift without seeking them out.
I would be interested in hearing you elaborate on why that rate is not attainable in your estimation.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yes, in a major metropolitan area with close to 200,000 undocumented immigrants where people don't support wholesale deportation, I'm sure the Denver police force of 2,000 officers would run into people they either reasonably believed to be or knew were undocumented immigrants. But not for long. And you're talking about one of the hotbeds of undocumented activity in the U.S. - Colorado has one of the top-10 undocumented populations in the country I believe, and they're mostly in major metropolitan areas.
And, again, that's 2,000 officers out of the 800,000 you're talking about. Maybe a week of "1 a shift." The next month they could each probably get a few people. After that, it would become very difficult.
There are, what, 5,000 undocumented immigrants in Maine? And 2,500 police officers? We're not moving all police from Maine to California to keep the numbers up on a per-month basis after two months, right?
Then we need to talk about what you mean by "address" nearly one a shift. I mean, you and I know that some substantial portion of the population that we meet is undocumented. We suspect that some of the individuals are. We may even know that 3 out of 4 of a group are. But is it a suspicion that's unmotivated by racial animus and going to hold up to support what would otherwise be Fourth Amendment violations? Because they're not stopping everyone to ask for papers. Which of course means the 5-8% of undocumented immigrants from Europe/Canada/etc aren't going anywhere. And these people who meet the police daily are the low-hanging fruit. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants have zero contact with police, especially in areas where they know that contact with the police may lead to identification and notification of ICE. Denver's pretty liberal. If they started arresting people they knew were undocumented, they wouldn't know many people were undocumented anymore.
I think that approach could probably get 10-15% of the undocumented population in 3-4 years or so. Generously maybe 25-30%, if things went very, very well and undocumented immigrants turned out to be very, very foolish. Which, by and large, they are not.
And of course that doesn't touch on the logistical nightmare of what happens to the U.S. economy if we wholesale deport that many workers.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sure....I figured you'd understand that I understand there are exceptions, but I didn't specifically state "as a general rule" so I am now.
I can't think of a scenario where my local tax dollars going to federal projects in lieu of my local projects are going to save me or my community money on my local projects. I've not made a cost/benefit that I am aware of. To this specific scenario you lay out here, I'd be perfectly fine with local government saying "Hey, we have this dude you may want. He's going to be here for a couple days while we go through the legal process. Get down here and get him in that timeframe" That seems like a pretty logical and reasonable response.
I gave you the logic behind my position and notice you don't include it in your framing of my position. If you feel it's strange that I think it's ok for the federal government to spend federal funds on the federal programs that support the states, I guess I'm strange. To ME it's odd that one would balk at using federal funds on stated federal programs that support the states. I understand that the fed and state governments have to work together. That does not mean that we should not be diligent in where/how the federal funds are spent and where/how the local/state funds are spent. Sure...if you pull this up to the 10,000 foot level, it's easy to make the "what's the big deal" argument. Until you dig down and look at direct impact.
For example...should be easy enough to invision this scenario:
Local Govt: We are proposing a sales tax increase of $.01 on the local sales tax to build the new elementary school needed.
Me: Awesome...you have my vote.
Local Govt: (1 year later)...we need to increase the sales tax another $.005.
Me: Why? What did you do with the money we already agreed to in the $.01 tax increase.
Local Govt: Oh...we used that to supplement the police officers necessary for the community.
Me: Why? It was for the schools
Local Govt: We've been helping detain criminals for the federal government and gone over our budget in doing so.
To me...that's a big problem...if you deem it strange, I think I'm ok with that
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
How can you say the two quotes above? Hey, here is a general rule. Hey I didnt say as a general rule.
I am not sure what you mean by my specific scenario. ICE detainers aren't very long. That's what we are discussing. From the FAQ page on their site...
So first you say no local dollars for fed use, then you say you didn't say that, but then you say it again, but then you say you are ok with it after all.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Understand I am not advocating the approach, just disputing that because their numbers are large that we have to cede the problem as something that is not even theoretically addressable.
My personal belief is that it would be very damaging for relations between local governments and the residents who reside there to implement such programs. Our Police and Code Enforcement Officers need to establish trust in those communities. Our Community Development and Development Assistance and Small Business Office need inroads into those communities, inroads which would be severed if we undertook the policy. No, I don't advocate such, but I do believe the problem is addressable. I do not find th enumbers of them daunting, only the other matters, as you have suggested, such as economic disruption.
Anyhow, thanks for your reply. I certainly need to recognize the distribution and concentration numbers of both illegals and L.E. as you have suggested and as I, admittedly, had not given any thought.
Similar threads
