Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Danzo]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think I have a pretty firm grasp of the generalized notions in play here (border security, immigration laws, legal v. illegal immigration).

I am not criticizing "the general notions a play here".  I am criticizing the current law and the specific details of the current law in how it is written and how it is enforced.

It is not enough to have a "pretty firm grasp of the generalized notions in play here".   We are dealing with specific laws that have specific consequences that are administered in a specific way.

Something you don't seem to know very much about. 

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think border and immigration policy has been poorly handled for a very long time.  

Because it is bad law.

[Danzo]

40 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I don’t think there’s been much new news on this thread since about page 3, lots of talking past each other.  Immigration tends to be an emotionally charged subject, but if we look at it objectively, I think there should be consensus around a few core principles.

1. Government has the responsibility to enact, and enforce even-handedly, an immigration policy that recognizes the country’s need and desire for immigration for both economic and humanitarian reasons.  The unsynchronized policies that are in place have been poorly communicated and, to put it mildly, unevenly enforced.  Thus the government has lost its moral authority regarding immigration.  That can be regained only by a reboot—enact new policy, explain it clearly and enforce it even-handedly, including deportation of anyone immigrating outside of the policy

2.  I say this as one who has taken a refugee family into my home (for seven years), represented (pro bono) a family seeking political asylum, and also teaches English classes for refugees:  there is no incongruity in helping refugees while supporting a responsible border policy, even if means having to encourage all immigrants to act within the current law as we serve them, while working towards a better policy/system.

3.  No harm in civil discourse on this issue but, as with most things, our time is best spent doing rather than talking.

Happy New Year to all.

Exactly

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am not criticizing "the general notions a play here". 

Sure seems like it.  I think we need to secure our borders.  That's a general notion, and you seem opposed to it.

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am criticizing the current law and the specific details of the current law in how it is written and how it is enforced.

As I have said several times, I am quite open to revising and improving immigration laws.

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It is not enough to have a "pretty firm grasp of the generalized notions in play here".   

I think it is.  You and I are, I think, the only lawyers participating in this thread.  Plenty of other people have weighed in with their opinions and assessments, despite having only a generalized grasp of things.  And you seem to have no problem with such opinions and assessments.

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

We are dealing with specific laws that have specific consequences that are administered in a specific way.

Something you don't seem to know very much about. 

I think deliberate refusal to secure our borders is bad.  I think this is fixable. 

13 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Because it is bad law.

Too conclusory.  I think laws securing our borders should be enforced, and that regulating who enters our country, and why, and for how long, and under what conditions and restrictions, etc., makes a lot of sense. 

Contrary to your and Kevin's accusations, I do not say this because I harbor notions of racial hatred.  To the contrary, I condemn and repudiate any such sentiments.

My sense is that is that some do not want our borders to be secured, but don't want to "say the quiet part out loud."  

If we have "bad law," we should revise and improve it, not disregard it to the tune of millions of unknown, unvetted persons crossing our borders illegally.  Some (many? most?) of these folks just want to come here to work, make money, provide for themselves and their family.  I acknowledge that.  Others, however, are coming for nefarious purposes.  I do not think you can or will acknowledge that.  Regardless, an unsecured border allows all of these folks, good and bad, benign and malign, come and stay here illegally.  I do not think this is a viable state of affairs.  Nor does the Church: 

"{E}very nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders."

and

"All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them."

and

"Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow {of illegal immigration} may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."  

I do not think you can or will acknowledge these points, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If we have "bad law," we should revise and improve it

That is what needs to happen.

[Rain]

14 minutes ago, Danzo said:

That is what needs to happen.

But it's also important to understand the situation.  My experience with just some of the Arizona state reps is they have a very poor understanding of how things currently work and yet are voting on it. We had one who started to get an understanding and his colleagues would actively not listen to him.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes I believe you are, though I'm not exactly sure why because you're clearly smart enough to have been able to follow what people are saying as well as the rest of us have.

You seem very invested in dismissing the posts or accounts that call for coming at the immigration situation from the point of view of mercy and loving those who are immigrating (even illegally) as we love ourselves, but I have no idea why.  Sometimes it seems like you are trying to misunderstand, or maybe more accurately, it seems like you are trying to find the angle that allows you to continue to assume the worst possible interpretation so your previous arguments don't have to be amended or invalidated.

I've often wondered if it's a lawyer thing when your posts start to do this because it can start to be like you are making an argument for an imaginary judge or jury, rather than having a discussion with other posters.

This, ten times and more over and over until it gets listened to…

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If I don't understand something, I say so.  

But then you don’t wait for clarification first, but continue on asking questions about their position as if you understand it when those questions are often irrelevant because you don’t.

This is not a one time thing.  It has happened many times to me personally and others.

And no, I am not going to find examples because I have taken the time in the past and it has made no difference.  If I see you actually trying to change your behaviour in the future, I will then again find examples.

Edited January 3, 2025 by Calm

[Danzo]

30 minutes ago, Rain said:

But it's also important to understand the situation.  My experience with just some of the Arizona state reps is they have a very poor understanding of how things currently work and yet are voting on it. We had one who started to get an understanding and his colleagues would actively not listen to him.

That is one of the big problems.  Good legislation takes time and thoughtful consideration. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also Danzo:

The "something else about them that you don't like" is pretty clearly an accusation of racial hatred.

Thanks,

-Smac

Or it could be simply wondering why you seem so invested in defending your view that you continue to put up extreme examples that are outliers according to the vast majority of research (the only research, Lott’s, claiming otherwise as far as I am aware has been shown to have a fatal error….which point as far as I have seen you have ignored) and maybe hoping you might spend some time thinking about it.

Illegal immigrants are not all the same race, there is even a significant portion from ‘white’ countries such as those in Eastern Europe.  Illegals have been accused of other things as a group that might make someone wary, such as driving down wages, taking jobs, overloading government services…nothing that has to do with race but have been accusations against illegals as a whole for as long as I can remember.  Therefore, there is no reason to assume from Danzo’s comment he was referring to racial hatred.

Edited January 3, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Sure seems like it.  I think we need to secure our borders.  That's a general notion, and you seem opposed to it.

Being opposed to the current method is not being opposed to secure borders.  Wanting to make the process easier and cheaper does not equate to removing all limits or even most.

You seem to equate the two in a lot of your responses to others even though you have stated you are open to better laws.  Defaulting to a black and white analysis of others while expecting others to treat your position as nuanced is inconsistent.

Edited January 3, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

  It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border that filters out illegal border crossers who come "to escape poverty and violence" versus border crossers who come for other, and nefarious, reasons.  To allow illegal immigration is to allow all illegal immigrants

But there are ways to make it easier and cheaper to come here legally so those who currently choose to come here illegally don’t feel forced into that dilemma.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or it could be simply wondering why you seem so invested in defending your view

Oh, brother.  Everyone on this board is interested in "defending" his or her "view."  My view just happens to be one not shared by most, so I'm getting faulted for doing what everyone else is doing.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

that you continue to put up extreme examples that are outliers according to the vast majority of research (the only research, Lott’s, claiming otherwise as far as I am aware has been shown to have a fatal error….which point as far as I have seen you have ignored) and maybe hoping you might spend some time thinking about it.

Again, in terms of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, I'm not speaking of typicality.  I'm speaking of crimes that would not have happened if we had secured borders.  We have enough criminality in the United States without effectively inviting more of it via "unchecked and unregulated" immigration.  I think criminality was part of the Church's calculus when it made this statement: "Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow {of illegal immigration} may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."  I reject the notion that crimes arising from illegal immigrants can be ignored or minimized because U.S. citizens also commit such crimes.  

Again, statistics about illegal immigrants being more or less likely to commit crimes are hard to come by in the U.S.

Also, the criminal acts associated with illegal immigration are not limited to those within the United States.  There is an entire industry devoted to it illegal immigration, which industry involves extensive and brutal physical and sexual exploitation of women and children by coyotes and other human traffickers.  The murder of the woman in NY was not not an outlier.  

Per ICE,  arrests of “criminal noncitizens,” referring to individuals who have been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border Patrol, have skyrocketed in recent years.  I think this article puts things well:

Quote

Illegal immigration is often portrayed as a victimless crime or is downplayed by asserting that most charges are for non-violent crimes. This simplistic approach shows a callousness towards the victims of crimes perpetrated by some unlawfully present foreign nationals and ignores the real threat posed by criminal illegal aliens. While it is true that most of the approximately 16.8 million illegal aliens in the U.S. do not commit serious crimes (e.g. murder, rape, or assault), providing those who do with protection provided by sanctuary policies or blanket amnesty can have fatal consequences. It is important to remember that a crime committed by an illegal alien is a preventable crime.  

The following cases may not represent the general illegal alien population, but they demonstrate the value of strong borders and underscore why illegal immigration remains a public safety concern. The information is gathered from various credible news sources and publicly-accessible official sources. The crimes do not include terrorist actions, but deal with crimes of a serious nature, such as homicide or manslaughter, rape or sexual crimes, assault on law enforcement, or sexual crimes related to minors. It is important to note the following involve charges or convictions for crimes committed by foreign nationals illegally in the country. View the video stories of those lives stolen by illegal alien crime.

"{A} crime committed by an illegal alien is a preventable crime."  Yep.

And here:

Quote

Advocates of a borderless United States – those who will do or say anything to maintain unimpeded illegal mass migration – demand that Americans deny an especially resonant consequence of that migration: illegal border crossers who murder, kill with drunk driving, rape, rob and beat their hosts.

In their arguments for continued releases into the country of illegal border-crossing strangers, libertarian and progressive activists always point to “studies” that compare crime rates for illegal aliens to those for U.S. citizens and conclude that Americans commit as much or more crime than the illegal immigrants. Media writers and pundits on the open-borders side parrot the “studies” to argue against detention and deportation proposals that would reduce illegal alien crime on the grounds that the main danger to address are U.S. citizen criminals and, while you’re at it, let the border flows continue unimpeded since that population is less worrisome.

This reasoning, such as it is, appears to be happening on this board as well.

Quote

...

Complicit in this misdirection are some {} who frequently engage the citizens-versus-illegal-aliens comparison in crime rates, trying to challenge, counter, and undermine the crime comparison studies.

...

The citizen-illegal alien comparison is invalid from the start. A different approach is necessary.

Invalid Apples-to-Rocks Comparison. The notion that policy thinkers and media pundits must compare the measured crime rates of citizens and illegal aliens has no foundation in academic science because the two compared groups are not similar enough.

Here is why: Illegal immigrants, unlike American citizens, are uniquely subject to an elaborate deportation and detention apparatus that Congress built to block and remove them from the country, in part so that they are not present to commit crimes. The same apparatus, of course, cannot touch American citizens who will commit crimes.

To state what should be obvious: Illegal aliens blocked at the border or who are quickly removed from the country cannot inflict harm on Americans because they are not present. That means every single crime committed by an illegally present immigrant was preventable and should never have happened, whereas the Department of Homeland Security detention and removal machine cannot prevent a single crime by an American citizen.

All crimes committed by illegal aliens represent an unnecessary and preventable burden on American society and its criminal justice system.

These differences between the two groups mean that comparing their crime rates isn’t even apples-to-oranges, but apples-to-rocks, and invalid from the start.

I think this is correct.

This is why the woman murdered in NY was, in my view, justifiably included in the discussion.  Every crime in the U.S. committed by someone who is not legally entitled to be here could have been prevented by excluding them from unlawful entry in the first place.

Quote

The Comparison Stands Discredited Anyway, But…. Immigration hawks have done much to discredit the studies that conclude American citizens are more prone to crime than illegal aliens. For instance, the Center for Immigration Studies has found that the activist-academics who favor unimpeded illegal immigration have misused data to undercount criminal alien crime. (See Misuse of Texas Data Understates Illegal Immigrant Crime and Continued Misuse of Texas Crime Data.)

I continue to be on the fence on this, as I feel that we do not have a clear picture of the data either way.  The topic is too emotional and politicized.  Just look at this board as a microcosm of this phenomenon.  I have not said a single thing suggesting that I endorse any sort of racialist sentiment relative to immigration policy, and yet two fairly prominent posters, Kevin and Danzo (both of whom I understand to be faithful and observant Latter-day Saints), have elected to publicly accuse me of racial hatred because I want to see the border secured.

Quote

Graves That Need Never Have Been Dug. Having said all this, the comparison “studies” sham was useful in one important regard – it surfaced data that sheds light on the magnitude of preventable illegal immigrant crime. The data comes from the only U.S. state that has consistently tracked its illegal immigrant crime for years: Texas.

Border enforcement advocates should use this rare data set, not to compare the incomparable but, rather, to emphasize the entirely preventable addition to overall U.S. crime. The Texas data should be used to emphasize the need for the United States to protect its citizens by exercising existing deportation and detention requirements embodied in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

America may never know the full extent of alien crime resulting from the {} border crisis, because most local, state, and federal agencies will not log the immigration status of criminals. But the Texas Department of Public Safety tracks the immigration status of suspects who are booked into local jails through a program that submits fingerprints to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks, and to DHS. The agencies return immigration status information on those whose fingerprints were already on file (which is not all of them).

From the resulting Texas statistics, we catch a partial glimpse of the vaster sea of preventable carnage nationwide, of murder, rape, child abuse, burglary, felony theft, drug trafficking, alien smuggling, and drunk driving manslaughter.

Between June 1, 2011, and June 30, 2024, these 437,000 criminal aliens (308,000 classified as illegal) were charged with more than 533,000 criminal offenses that should never have happened. Those included 997 homicide charges (resulting in 498 convictions as of June 2024), 1,245 kidnapping charges (resulting in 354 convictions), 6,744 sexual assault charges (resulting in 3,537 convictions), 7,763 sexual offense charges (resulting in 3,537 sexual offense convictions), and 6,560 weapons charges (resulting in 2,138 weapons convictions). Texas includes another category called “All Other Offenses,” which tallies 298,912 (and 103,265 convictions).

I am appalled at these numbers.

Quote

The Texas data reveals hundreds of dead people who should be alive, thousands of sexual assault and sexual offense victims who should never have suffered trauma, and tens of thousands of assault charges involving victims who should not have been hurt.

The Texas data shows that criminal aliens clogged up the justice system and took up police time that could have been dedicated to deterring or punishing American criminals. Thousands of drug, burglary, robbery, and weapons charges need not have jammed the Texas criminal justice systems at taxpayer cost.

In all, more than 32,000 people identified by DHS as living in the country illegally were imprisoned in Texas. But this appears to be an undercount, despite Texas’s efforts. We know this because the Texas program found that another 10,748 illegal aliens since 2011, people whose immigration status hadn’t been federally determined at the time of arrest and was only later determined when they were sent to Texas state prisons. There must be far more.

As I noted previously, it seems pretty much intuitive that unlawful, and essentially "unchecked and unregulated" immigration into the United States will result in substantial numbers of people with violent propensities coming across our borders (alongside those who are otherwise law-abiding and just want to work here).

Quote

Among them were prisoners serving time for 134 more unnecessary, preventable homicides. The graves of their dozens of victims are as real as those of the few who have drawn national media attention.

I think the families and friends of these 134 victims deserve to have a voice in whether we should secure our border (and perhaps they should be afforded the opportunity to state their opinions without being baselessly accused of harboring notions of racial hatred).

Quote

The huge scale of seven million or more strangers allowed to enter the United States over the past three-plus years means the size of the criminal class among them must be historically large as well. All of the extra crimes they commit could be prevented by the exercise of lawful detention and deportation.

Far fewer bad things will happen if Americans finally slam the comparative-crime-rates door with its fake stairwell and open the correct one.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  YMMV.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Illegal immigrants are not all the same race,

Strange, then, that Kevin and Danzo have both presented accusations of racial hatred.

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

there is even a significant portion from ‘white’ countries such as those in Eastern Europe.  

Yep, along with healthy numbers of people from China, India, Turkey, etc. who are also crossing the southern border illegally (to say nothing of the many more who end up here illegally by other means).  

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

Illegals have been accused of other things as a group that might make someone wary, such as driving down wages, taking jobs, overloading government services…nothing that has to do with race but have been accusations against illegals as a whole for as long as I can remember.  Therefore, there is no reason to assume from Danzo’s comment he was referring to racial hatred.

I construed it as such (and still do), and told him as much, and he has not denied it.  So there's that.

And Kevin's accusation of racial hatred was explicit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border that filters out illegal border crossers who come "to escape poverty and violence" versus border crossers who come for other, and nefarious, reasons.  To allow illegal immigration is to allow all illegal immigrants

But there are ways to make it easier and cheaper to come here legally so those who currently choose to come here illegally don’t feel forced into that dilemma.

I agree, but this does not resolve the issue.  Having an intentionally unsecured border will always incentivize illegal crossings, and all the terrible things that go with that.  As long as we fail/refuse to secure our border, bad people will cross it (alongside the good).

Also, making legal immigration easier will also level the playing field.  There are many people from Asia, Africa, Australia and Europe who lack land access to entry into the United States, and who should have an equal opportunity to come here lawfully.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 4, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Everyone on this board is interested in "defending" his or her "view."

Again presenting the other’s view as black and white when it’s not.  “So invested” is not identical to “invested”.  I am in no wise claiming no one else is invested or defending their pov.  You appear to me to be “overly invested” (why I don’t know, this also doesn’t mean there aren’t others who are heavily invested or even over invested) leading you to take it to a more extreme position that prevents you from accurately portraying what others’ positions are.  Outside of the questioning of the motivations, I think other posters are presenting relatively clear views of others’ positions whether they agree with them or not.  Sometimes there are errors, but they register clarifications where you may verbally accept something, but then shift back to questioning the strawman position of open borders again.

Quote

I'm speaking of crimes that would not have happened if we had secured borders

Which is strange because as far as I can tell those who disagree with you are not offering solutions that allow criminals to enter the US unchallenged, but simply want the process quicker and easier to complete….which doesn’t mean lowering standards to zero anymore than streamlining a driving test from an all day affair to 20 minutes would mean lowering standards on who gets a license.  
 

Quote

Again, statistics about illegal immigrants being more or less likely to commit crimes are hard to come by in the U.S.

And you have ignored the recent study I posted that did exactly that yet again.  Why should anyone bother to interact with you when you ignore substantive responses and just repeat yourself rather than engage with people?

Quote

This reasoning, such as it is, appears to be happening on this board as well.

Which shows again you appear to be ignoring actual positions and reasoning when most posters who disagree with you appear to me are saying they want to make the process easier so those who feel forced to come here as illegals will be able to come here legally and this doesn’t mean no background checks or no limits.  It means dumping the current process that only clogs up the system and turns punishment into something unpredictable therefore which encourages illegal immigration, not discourages it.

From Danzo:

Quote

It is possible to say that "controlling the borders  is a good thing" and "the current way we have chosen to control the borders  is not good." 

California boy:

Quote

Using the terms closed border or open borders can mean a lot of things.  I think everyone believes there should be a way for people to enter the country legally. 

The closest I can quickly find to suggesting open borders was this from Danzo:

Quote

if the border were open , why would anyone use a coyote?

But you have to completely ignore what else he says to assume he means throwing the door open and letting anyone who wants to come in…

Quote

The goal of "Securing" the border can be done in a much better way.

Quote

Smac:  

it seems pretty much intuitive that unlawful, and essentially "unchecked and unregulated" immigration into the United States will result in substantial numbers of people with violent propensities coming across our borders

And if anyone here was suggesting “unchecked and unregulated” immigration this would be a relevant comment.  Since no one is (at least not that I recall so if someone did it was likely not part of the ongoing conversation I assume that you intend to be part of), instead of you being responsive to other posts, it appears you are being pretty much ignoring them and just taking the opportunity to repeat and justify your own position again.

Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Having an intentionally unsecured border will always incentivize illegal crossings, and all the terrible things that go with that.  As long as we fail/refuse to secure our border, bad people will cross it (alongside the good).

What does having an unsecured border have to do with my post?  Again it seems you are using others’ posts just to repeat your own position on unsecured borders without interacting with others…though I grant the comment about a level playing field was relevant.  It is odd to me that was more a side comment given the thought in the way you presented it with a “also” rather than the central comment, which would have been fully engaging with my actual comments.

Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

I want to be sure I am not misunderstanding anyone here.

Does anyone posting in this thread believe our borders should be unsecured?

Does anyone posting in this thread believe security should simply amount to showing up at the border and signing a name?  (Which is my guess at what could be the lowest level of a legal ‘secured’ crossing that really isn’t secure at all (no documentation required).

Perhaps Smac could list anything else he believes contributes to an unsecured (unintentional or intentional) border that anyone on the thread is advocating for and I can add it to the list?

If you are lurking and want to share your position briefly, please do.   

Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border that filters out illegal border crossers who come "to escape poverty and violence" versus border crossers who come for other, and nefarious, reasons.  To allow illegal immigration is to allow all illegal immigrants

But there are ways to make it easier and cheaper to come here legally so those who currently choose to come here illegally don’t feel forced into that dilemma.

Having an intentionally unsecured border will always incentivize illegal crossings, and all the terrible things that go with that.  As long as we fail/refuse to secure our border, bad people will cross it (alongside the good).

What does having an unsecured border have to do with my post?  

We have been discussing illegal border crossings throughout this thread, including immediately preceding your comment ("It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border...").

Since January 2021, about 8 million people have done this across our southern border, with about 2.4M coming in the 4 years preceding that.

Per this 2006 study, more than 1/2 of those here illegally entered the country illegally.  

It's a pretty relevant topic.  

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Again it seems you are using others’ posts just to repeat your own position on unsecured borders without interacting with others…

I was responding to your comment, which was responding to mine, which was about border crossings.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

though I grant the comment about a level playing field was relevant.  

Okay.

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is odd to me that was more a side comment given the thought in the way you presented it with a “also” rather than the central comment, which would have been fully engaging with my actual comments.

I have been speaking about securing our borders, as well as about visa overstays.  Both are big problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

This comes as no surprise, Trump using illegal immigrants 

 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/rubio-campaign-press-release-fact-check-donald-trump-used-illegal-immigrants-build-trump

 

it's one thing to "secure the borders" but another to hire them

https://americasvoice.org/blog/trump-hates-legal-immigration-except-when-he-loves-it/

[blackstrap]

The southern border is about 2000 miles long. There are 50 places where people can legally cross. If these were evenly spread along the border ( which they definitely are not ) that would mean there are about 40 miles between stations. Securing that distance is darn near impossible without thousands of more border guards, or the military.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

This comes as no surprise, Trump using illegal immigrants 

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/rubio-campaign-press-release-fact-check-donald-trump-used-illegal-immigrants-build-trump

From this 1991 matter:

Quote

Mr. Diduck charged that Mr. Trump, who was desperate to meet both the deadlines for the project and for his complex financing requirements, overlooked the use of the undocumented workers, who put in 12-hour days, 7 days a week and in some cases even slept at the site. Mr. Trump was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, along with the Trump-Equitable Fifth Avenue Company, a partnership he formed with the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, which was also named.

A 16-day trial took place last summer in which Mr. Trump testified that he did not know that undocumented workers were on the job and that Kaszycki and Sons did all the hiring. But in his ruling, Judge Stewart wrote that the Trump employee overseeing the demolition, Thomas Macari, was well aware of their existence.

"The Polish workers were obvious not only in numbers but also in appearance," the judge wrote in his decision. "In contrast to the union workers, the nonunion Polish workers were distinguished by the fact that most of them did not wear hard hats." Mr. Macari would appear on the site with cash to pay the Polish workers, the judge's decision said, and at times the Polish workers staged "very visible work stoppages because they were not being paid their wages," which at $4 or $5 an hour were at least less than half what union workers were paid.

Regardless, hiring illegal workers is still illegal.  The defendants in this instance were held accountable.

And I note that the "nonunion Polish workers" were paid "at least less than half what union workers were paid." 

29 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it's one thing to "secure the borders" but another to hire them

https://americasvoice.org/blog/trump-hates-legal-immigration-except-when-he-loves-it/

I assume by "hire them" you mean "hire {illegal immigrants}."

I would prefer that we hire legal immigrants, and that they receive a decent wage.  As it is, hiring illegal immigrants tends to undercut the wages of those who are legally authorized to work in the U.S.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We have been discussing illegal border crossings throughout this thread, including immediately preceding your comment ("It's not like we have some sort of lie detector system in place at the border...").

 

 

Of course we are talking in general about illegal immigration, a big part of it being illegal border crossings….and in my mind I was thinking of immigrants calmly filling out paperwork at home and sending it in by mail or better yet by computer with a straightforward and relatively accessible, very low cost process (I leave it to those more experienced as to what the logical miminum should be) so that they knew when they got to the border they were already accepted and would have a minimal wait time that did not add massive costs to the effort or result in hordes camping at the crossings or whatever chaos goes on when the system is so messed up.  
 

And these legal immigrants of the future when we have sane laws I am imagining can come home to their loved non American country with little problem and no complications with further visits to the US if their work is seasonal, for example, or they want to leave their families at home, but still see them in person when they have time….even if they want to do it on a daily or weekly basis.

If it’s cheaper, reliable, and at least almost as quick to cross legally, they won’t be tempted to cross illegally.

Which means those ones crossing illegally at the border when the process is cheap, reliable and quick, the ones still using coyotes will be the ones that wouldn’t be accepted…most likely because of criminality.  At which point you can invest the money that would have been wasted on inefficiencies and overloaded enforcement programs on a useful and effective strong secure border for keeping out the criminals trying to cross illegally because allowing relatively easy and low cost access for the naturally law abiding allows for investing in controlling those who need to be controlled.  Instead what of what we have now that than dilutes efforts in the massive numbers of illegals needing to be dealt with by having no statute of limitations or making it hard and expensive for those who want to work in noncriminal industries or those wanting to visit family or need a safer place to live wanting to leave the crime or violence behind them.

So I respond with a short, but I am thinking sufficient comment about making crossing cheaper and easier to access…I did not say anything about not unsecured.  I have never, ever promoted unsecured borders at all.  Unsecured borders is one of the reasons I think our current laws are crap…because they are unenforceable as they stand.  If they were enforceable, someone would be doing a decent job somewhere and could be used as an example of how it should be done.  Where is that person, that department?  
 

Still you respond like I am suggesting leaving the border crossings unmanned while the patrol goes back to the station, office, home to twiddle their thumbs.  
 

If your excuse for posting such an irrelevant comment in my post is someone else said something along those lines, then talk to them, not me, because it makes no sense in the flow of conversation to use it as your first response in quoting me.
 

Quote

As long as we fail/refuse to secure our border, bad people will cross it (alongside the good).

Who would argue with the above?  Who is arguing for unsecured borders in this thread?

Edited January 4, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

29 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

The southern border is about 2000 miles long. There are 50 places where people can legally cross. If these were evenly spread along the border ( which they definitely are not ) that would mean there are about 40 miles between stations. Securing that distance is darn near impossible without thousands of more border guards, or the military.

I agree.  One can make it more difficult to cross illegally though and less difficult to cross legally.  That would lead to far fewer incidents of illegal crossings and would allow for more focus being placed on the bad guys.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

But it's also important to understand the situation.  My experience with just some of the Arizona state reps is they have a very poor understanding of how things currently work and yet are voting on it. We had one who started to get an understanding and his colleagues would actively not listen to him.

You aren’t going to get good law without effort and involving and trusting people with actual experience.

 

[MiserereNobis]

There are students all throughout my school district, in my school, and in my classes who are here illegally or whose parents are here illegally.

What is the view here of Dreamers? Especially children?

There is prodigious fear of the upcoming administration and how they plan to interact with schools. Our district is having a town hall prior to inauguration day to explain their [my school district's] policies and regulations about this, which is basically to deny access to school children by immigration officials unless explicitly required by law (and in that case everything goes through the Superintendent's office and legal counsel).

Imagine being a 10 year old and afraid of going to school because the Border Patrol might show up and detain you.

Edited January 4, 2025 by MiserereNobis

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Of course we are talking in general about illegal immigration, a big part of it being illegal border crossings….and in my mind I was thinking of immigrants calmly filling out paperwork at home and sending it in by mail or better yet by computer with a straightforward and relatively accessible, very low cost process (I leave it to those more experienced as to what the logical miminum should be) so that they knew when they got to the border they were already accepted and would have a minimal wait time that did not add massive costs to the effort or result in hordes camping at the crossings or whatever chaos goes on when the system is so messed up.  

We will still have a supply-and-demand issue, namely, the demand (the number of people who want to enter into, stay and work in the United States) will pretty much always vastly exceed the supply (the number of people we can reasonably accommodate).  Consequently, people will still be incentivized to come in illegally, whether it be by crossing the border or overstaying visas.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

And these legal immigrants of the future when we have sane laws I am imagining can come home to their loved non American country with little problem and no complications with further visits to the US if their work is seasonal, for example, or they want to leave their families at home, but still see them in person when they have time….even if they want to do it on a daily or weekly basis.

If it’s cheaper, reliable, and at least almost as quick to cross legally, they won’t be tempted to cross illegally.

Again, I'm not sure about that.  Supply and demand.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Which means those ones crossing illegally at the border when the process is cheap, reliable and quick, the ones still using coyotes will be the ones that wouldn’t be accepted…most likely because of criminality.  

Your proposal assumes that everyone who simply fills out a form will be be automatically granted access.  I don't think that works.  We only need so much unskilled labor, which means that the excess numbers will try to come across illegally.  

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

So I respond with a short, but I am thinking sufficient comment about making crossing cheaper and easier to access…I did not say anything about not unsecured.  

Securing the border, regardless of what approach we take, is a necessary and good thing.

Thanks,

-Smac