Completely agree, though one of the points I'm trying to make in this article is that a system in which we merely turn a blind eye to illegal immigration is vastly inferior to one in which we expand legal immigration.
I have for many years carefully explained to people that the obvious answer to “illegal immigration” is to make immigration legal. That both Republicans and Democrats fail to see the clarity of this obvious answer is stunning. But, they claim, this means we will have “open borders.” No, it simply means we will have “controlled borders” with enforced rules and legal processes so people wishing to come to the U.S. can be processed through a legal immigration process to gain legal entry, residency, and the right to work (be employed) and work in the U.S. But some say “too many undesirables” will come and seek entry. Well first, what does “too many” and “undesirable” mean? This is why a legal immigration pathway should have rules and adequate processes to qualify and review immigrant applicants. Surely wise and reasonable people could develop such rules and processes, could they not? Sigh, this is why we continue to fail to solve this problem. We seem to have a severe shortage of wise and reasonable people assigned the task of solving the problem.
Both Democrats and Republicans are clearly on the Sinaloa payroll. Republicans refuse to increase limits and call everyone who wants to come here a rapist criminal and Democrats call every effort to limit immigration a crime against humanity. The biggest unspoken need in immigration is the ability to go back and forth across the border. Many immigrants want to work part of the year and then go home. Our policies make it where entire families need to come here instead. And climate change is going to decimate Central America’s agriculture so expect more business!!
I think we're both half-right here. I'll concede that laws do make a difference, tighter controls generally mean less immigration, and the left (or parts of it) have made it their mission to undermine enforcement (which I absolutely did mention several times in this article). But one of my points is that immigration flows mostly appear to wax and wane in response to factors that don't have much to do with our policies. Economics, safety...these things overwhelm the particulars of our laws. And our failure to expand our legal immigration in response to increased demand (so to speak) has mostly just pushed immigration underground.
We could argue about how effective any particular slate of policies would be (I'm not sure any country has an immigration situation analogous to ours), but instead, maybe we can agree that a reformed system that allows many more people to enter legally and enforces laws against those who enter illegally would be good.
I'm aware of the problem we have at our Southern border, but am not deeply informed on the particulars. When you say, "the Democratic Party has fought like demons to prevent immigration enforcement for decades," do you have examples of what they've done?
Oh, gotcha. I am familiar with those. I was wondering if you had something of substance. Those are right wing talking points, used to inflame their base. They are not serious policy issues.
Ok, so we're coming from positions of mutual mistrust of motives, Mr. or Ms. Siege Engine. Perhaps we can work around that. I am curious how someone arrives at the conclusions you've put forth.
Going one at a time, how do the policies of municipalities not on the border have any effect on Federal border control? I don't see the linkage. Particularly in light of the fact that those individual cities become sanctuaries based on sound civic and humanitarian reasons. There's not much upside to having a group of people who are afraid to call the police when needed, unless you're trying to create an underclass in society who are forced to live in lawless conditions. Also, tasking municipal PD's with immigration control is just putting another job on their plate that is not really their jurisdiction, when they seem pretty busy already. I'm more interested in police mitigating violence than terrorizing vulnerable people.
If you want to debate the issue of sanctuary cities, fine. But it's irrelevant to the border itself, and is definitely not an example of Democrats trying to prevent orderly, controlled immigration.
Immigration good, we should have more of it please.
Completely agree, though one of the points I'm trying to make in this article is that a system in which we merely turn a blind eye to illegal immigration is vastly inferior to one in which we expand legal immigration.
I have for many years carefully explained to people that the obvious answer to “illegal immigration” is to make immigration legal. That both Republicans and Democrats fail to see the clarity of this obvious answer is stunning. But, they claim, this means we will have “open borders.” No, it simply means we will have “controlled borders” with enforced rules and legal processes so people wishing to come to the U.S. can be processed through a legal immigration process to gain legal entry, residency, and the right to work (be employed) and work in the U.S. But some say “too many undesirables” will come and seek entry. Well first, what does “too many” and “undesirable” mean? This is why a legal immigration pathway should have rules and adequate processes to qualify and review immigrant applicants. Surely wise and reasonable people could develop such rules and processes, could they not? Sigh, this is why we continue to fail to solve this problem. We seem to have a severe shortage of wise and reasonable people assigned the task of solving the problem.
Both Democrats and Republicans are clearly on the Sinaloa payroll. Republicans refuse to increase limits and call everyone who wants to come here a rapist criminal and Democrats call every effort to limit immigration a crime against humanity. The biggest unspoken need in immigration is the ability to go back and forth across the border. Many immigrants want to work part of the year and then go home. Our policies make it where entire families need to come here instead. And climate change is going to decimate Central America’s agriculture so expect more business!!
Chef's kiss to this clarity
Is this the real Arturo Guzman? Because it feels like a deepfake.
I needed a human trafficker to finally explain to me the US immigration system.
Thank you Senor Guzman.
Really? https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/05/18/mayor-eric-adams-nearly-half-of-nyc-hotel-rooms-now-filled-with-migrants/
I think we're both half-right here. I'll concede that laws do make a difference, tighter controls generally mean less immigration, and the left (or parts of it) have made it their mission to undermine enforcement (which I absolutely did mention several times in this article). But one of my points is that immigration flows mostly appear to wax and wane in response to factors that don't have much to do with our policies. Economics, safety...these things overwhelm the particulars of our laws. And our failure to expand our legal immigration in response to increased demand (so to speak) has mostly just pushed immigration underground.
We could argue about how effective any particular slate of policies would be (I'm not sure any country has an immigration situation analogous to ours), but instead, maybe we can agree that a reformed system that allows many more people to enter legally and enforces laws against those who enter illegally would be good.
He literally calls out democrats in the next paragraph.
I'm aware of the problem we have at our Southern border, but am not deeply informed on the particulars. When you say, "the Democratic Party has fought like demons to prevent immigration enforcement for decades," do you have examples of what they've done?
Oh, gotcha. I am familiar with those. I was wondering if you had something of substance. Those are right wing talking points, used to inflame their base. They are not serious policy issues.
Ok, so we're coming from positions of mutual mistrust of motives, Mr. or Ms. Siege Engine. Perhaps we can work around that. I am curious how someone arrives at the conclusions you've put forth.
Going one at a time, how do the policies of municipalities not on the border have any effect on Federal border control? I don't see the linkage. Particularly in light of the fact that those individual cities become sanctuaries based on sound civic and humanitarian reasons. There's not much upside to having a group of people who are afraid to call the police when needed, unless you're trying to create an underclass in society who are forced to live in lawless conditions. Also, tasking municipal PD's with immigration control is just putting another job on their plate that is not really their jurisdiction, when they seem pretty busy already. I'm more interested in police mitigating violence than terrorizing vulnerable people.
If you want to debate the issue of sanctuary cities, fine. But it's irrelevant to the border itself, and is definitely not an example of Democrats trying to prevent orderly, controlled immigration.