Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[halconero]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

An "Zion" = the institutional Church?  As presently constituted?  Will this be a pre-millennial thing?

I'm using Zion as a shorthand. I believe it will be related to, but distinct from the institutional Church. Yes, it will be a pre-millennial thing.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would like to read more about this concept.  Is it just your own, or are you relying on others when formulating it?  Can you provide any references for it?  Are you thinking along "Council of Fifty" lines?

Both my own and others. It's been a while since I did a specific study on it, but yes, it relies on a lot of Council of Fifty minutes, along with statements by Joseph Smith before the martyrdom.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Still curious what this "Zion" is, and if there is any pre-millennial aspect to it.

So "Zion" will have the powers of secular government?  Legislating statutes, enforcing and interpreting them, etc.?  Armed forces and law enforcement? 

Yes, I think it will have the powers of secular government — including the power to enact, enforce, and interpret statutes. It will include armed forces and law enforcement.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Essentially, a theocratic state?

Theodemocratic. Non-members will be welcome to join as both citizens and elected officials.

I should note here that perhaps, in contrast to the popular image, in no way do I feel compelled to accelerate the above outcome. I'm very content and happy in my role as a university academic and to teach students the methods and theory relevant to public policymaking and economics, according to the current state of affairs in the world. My "prepper" tendencies are primarily focused on making sure my standard first aid certification is up to date, having an emergency fund, and still investing my retirement fund in vanguard index funds. I don't know when/how the above will occur with any sort of exactitude, except that the best preparation for it is spiritual in nature, including principles of charity, love, kindness, and towards all, especially my family.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I assume the relationship here is inverse?  That more border security results in increased comfort levels re: immigration, and vice versa?

In statistical terms, we'd say there's a positive correlation rather than an inverse one. That is:

As X increases, so does Y, where X = perceived level of border security and Y = support for higher immigration levels. An inverse relationship would suggest that as perceived border security increases, support for higher immigration diminishes.

I should note that whether or not a correlation exists doesn't define its causal nature. There are cases where causation is present without correlation. For example, if your home heating is set to maintain a certain temperature, or keep it constant, you'll see no relationship at all with regards to increased fuel consumption in your furnace and the interior temperature of your house. Likewise, when you increase the press the pedal in a car to maintain your speed uphill, there's no observable correlation between pedal pressure and speed, as the latter doesn't change. We can identify causality in both cases not because of the correlation, but in comparing outcomes (temperature or speed) to real or hypothesized counterfactuals where we turn the thermostat off or take our foot off the pedal.

In the above example, my colleagues used an experimental research design to produce a counterfactual estimate against which they could compare support for immigration against different border security scenarios.

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds good.  Take your time.  I look forward to reading it.  I would love to see increased security and increased (lawful) immigration.

Thanks,

-Smac

That's more or less my position. My wish list would include a third option for policies that enhance positive contact between long-term American citizens and newly arrived immigrants. I'm convinced it's at least one of the primary antidotes to prejudice and strife, based on my own experimentation and the work of others in the area of inter-group contact theory. Put succinctly, it's harder to hate someone when you exist, work, live, love, and experience hardship together in the same shared space. The idea is reasonably well tested - the policies that incent that to happen, not so much.

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I am an indigenous person,  well at least 1/4 Cherokee. How many generations do you have to be here to be considered indigenous?

if you can go beyond "at least"........

[The Nehor]

The big problem on the border itself is that the current average wait time for an asylum hearing is around four years. This is a problem and despite how some spin this it is a congressional problem that the executive branch can do little about. We need to hire more people to process these asylum claims. We need judges, lawyers, and staff. Next time anyone in Congress tries to blame the executive branch or the courts for the border know they are just dodging responsibility.

[Dario_M]

6 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

I can tell you the same thing happened in Fiji. The immigrants outnumbered the local Fijians and took over the politics and my friend had to move his business to Samoa.

Really? I've never heard of those country's though. 

[Danzo]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  How many people?  As many as want to come?

I have always been a fan of the free market.  I think regulation by market would have a much better outcome than regulation by quota.

Regulating a market (the labor market, in this case) by quota never really works that well (as the Soviet Union found out).  

It just creates black markets (as we are currently experiencing)

I think if you are willing to work. actually get a and maintain an jo, don't have a criminal background and don't use welfare, then you should be allowed to come in and work. (and leave when you are done working).  If people can come in to work, then leave when they are done, they have much less incentive to bring their families with them.  Many of the people I know who brought their families here, brought their families because of the difficulty of going back and forth over the border.  Before, when it was easier to go back and forth, they didn't need to bring their families. 

 

 

[Danzo]

On 12/14/2024 at 4:42 PM, rodheadlee said:

All legalities aside where are we going to absorb 10 million new people? Whose wages will be affected by this? It was a huge problem when Jimmy Carter let everybody in when he was president. I lost my retirement.

Could you explain?

What happened to your retirement when Jimmy Carter was president?

 

[smac97]

On 12/17/2024 at 10:24 AM, Danzo said:

Quote

Okay.  How many people?  As many as want to come?

I have always been a fan of the free market.  I think regulation by market would have a much better outcome than regulation by quota.

So, is that a "yes"?  As many as want to come?  

On 12/17/2024 at 10:24 AM, Danzo said:

Regulating a market (the labor market, in this case) by quota never really works that well (as the Soviet Union found out).  

Open borders and massive influxes of cheap/unskilled labor, and the concomitant burdens on housing, food, medical services, infrastructure, entitlements, etc. also don't seem to be working well (as much of Europe, and the United States, are finding out).

It has been interesting to watch NYC go from bragging about being a "Sanctuary City" to repeated "Please Don't Come Here" importunings.

On 12/17/2024 at 10:24 AM, Danzo said:

It just creates black markets (as we are currently experiencing)

I think this could be substantially mitigated by secured borders, technology, etc.  See, e.g., here: Deporting 1 million undocumented immigrants a year is much easier than you think

Quote

In a Time magazine interview published this week, Donald Trump continues to stand by his plan to deport millions of undocumented immigrants in the United States to their home countries beginning the day he takes office. Vice President-elect J.D. Vance says that they will start at a minimum target of 1 million immigrants a year.

I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Quote

Critics say the effort will cost $1 trillion and a CNN analysis of research on the subject says even deporting 1 million a year is “unrealistic.” That’s bunk.

 

The deportation deniers offer four reasons we can’t do it: It will cost too much; we don’t know who to deport and we’ll have to grossly violate civil liberties to get it done. Moreover, they argue, foreign countries won’t take them back. None of those are true or they don’t have to be.

 

I am not making a judgment on whether Trump should make a record-setting mass deportation effort. I am saying that too many analysts have confused what they want to be true with what actually is true.

Hmm.

Quote

Myth 1: It costs too much

To begin with, in 2009 and 2010, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported 250,000 people a year from the interior of the U.S. each year. Those are the hardest cases, not like people we turn away just over the border or those we apprehend, process and then return home, which are sometimes reported as deportations.

 

The budget for these 500,000 deportations was $7.5 billion over two years or $3.74 billion annually in 2024 dollars, in what is called ICE’s Detention and Removal Budget. It was bipartisan, happening under the leadership of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. In the years since then, that budget has gone up by 20% to $4.5 billion but we’re deporting a fraction of the number of immigrants we did before.

 

All we have to do is get back to the same efficiency we had in 2009 and 2010 to deport 300,000 (20% more than 250,000). Say the next 300,000 cost twice as much to deport — $9 billion and the next 300,000 cost twice as much again, or $18 billion. That’s 900,000 deportations a year for $31.5 billion annually. That doesn’t seem too crazy. And over a decade, that’s a third the cost critics complain of.

 

Moreover, even the lowball estimates of researchers who say Trump’s goals are impossible accept that such a national effort would cause more than a 100,000 immigrants a year to leave on their own to avoid getting entangled with ICE. That’s your million a year.

Thoughts?

Quote

Myth 2: We don’t know who to deport

We know enough right now to handle the first five or six years. The federal government knows of 1 to 2 million undocumented immigrants in the country who are wanted or convicted criminals, depending on your definition. There are already 1.5 million undocumented immigrants who are not criminals, but who have been through the immigration court system and been denied legal status. At the same time, there are nearly 4 million cases lumbering their way through our immigration court system — what’s often called the “backlog.”

 

We don’t have to identify a single new individual as an undocumented immigrant for six years of deporting 1 million a year. That’s half the undocumented migrants in the country.

Hmm.

Quote

Myth 3: We’ll violate civil rights

Critics of the Trump plan argue that there simply aren’t enough resources to give everyone who gets caught up in the ICE net due process. Not enough lawyers, judges and ICE agents.

 

To begin with, there’s no serious argument that the Bush and Obama administrations were violating civil rights willy-nilly when they deported 250,000 undocumented immigrants a year 15 years ago. Trump’s plan can do the same due diligence as it ramps up to a million a year by spending up to four times as much per immigrant — that’s a lot of extra resources. Trump told Time that he wants to follow the law to get this done. It wasn’t that long ago that ICE quadrupled removals without systematically violating civil rights. The Biden administration did it between 2020 and 2024.

 

For the first six years, the people who would be targeted for deportation have already gotten their due process or are in the process of getting it already from the system in place under President Joe Biden.

"For the first six years, the people who would be targeted for deportation have already gotten their due process or are in the process of getting it already from the system in place under President Joe Biden."

During this six years we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.  

Quote

Myth 4: Countries won’t take back citizens

According to Pew researchers, two-thirds of what they believe are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States come from Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean and South America. All those countries get billions a year in remittances from immigrants who work in the U.S. and send home part of their earnings.

 

In many cases, a country’s economy is dependent on this $200 billion in leverage. Trump can deliver a simple message: If you don’t take back your undocumented immigrants, our financial system will cut off the remittances. This tool would work just as well with much of Asia, the Middle East and Africa where, among others, Pakistan, Vietnam and Nigeria each get billions of dollars.

Thoughts?

Quote

The Trump administration has powerful winds at its back that might allow it to launch roundups and deportations at an even faster pace. Computer technology and surveillance have both advanced markedly since 2009. There are more police than there were 15 years ago and crime is much lower — allowing more boots on the ground to enforce immigration laws if local police cooperate as they do in much of the country, and which Trump says he will encourage. The economy is much more digitized, making it harder to live a life where your identity is off the grid.

 

And there are powerful tools to make the United States much less welcoming to undocumented immigrants that the U.S. has never wielded. For instance, undocumented migrants paid federal, state and local governments nearly $100 billion in taxes in 2024, billions of which is returned to them in refunds fueled by tax breaks targeted at low-income earners. The U.S. could require proof of legal presence to pay refunds and hold the money until the immigrants agree to return to their home countries. Companies could be required to provide proof of legal presence for each employee whose salary they claim as an expense on their taxes. Such a move would hit farmers and hotels where undocumented workers frequently work, as each is dependent on undocumented migrants for workers, and the salaries of which are deducted on their taxes.

 

Donald Trump’s plans for dealing with undocumented immigration are big, and they could be undone by the competence problems that were rife in his last administration. But they are not as unrealistic as his critics proclaim.

Interesting stuff, this.

On 12/17/2024 at 10:24 AM, Danzo said:

I think if you are willing to work. actually get a and maintain an job, don't have a criminal background and don't use welfare, then you should be allowed to come in and work. (and leave when you are done working). 

Sounds pretty good.  This is not "open borders," but nor is it "as many as want to come."  Rather, it's "as many as want to come and 'are willing to work' and 'actually get and maintain a job' and 'don't have a criminal background' {and, I would add, don't commit serious or multiple crimes while you are here} and 'don't use welfare' and 'leave when you are done working.'"

On 12/17/2024 at 10:24 AM, Danzo said:

If people can come in to work, then leave when they are done, they have much less incentive to bring their families with them.  Many of the people I know who brought their families here, brought their families because of the difficulty of going back and forth over the border.  Before, when it was easier to go back and forth, they didn't need to bring their families. 

Good thoughts. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12 by smac97

[Damien the Leper]

I'm confused by the pearl clutching when someone enters the US illegally and yet no one is concerned when the US enters or involves itself illegally with another country. 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So, is that a "yes"?  As many as want to come?

as many as the market will allow.  

I take it you are more of a Big Government Central Planning type of guy when it comes to the labor market?  Not much faith in the free market?

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think this could be substantially mitigated by secured borders, technology, etc.  See, e.g., here: Deporting 1 million undocumented immigrants a year is much easier than you think

Big government people always seem to think controlling black markets is easy.  The Invisible Hand, can be pretty powerful.  Even the Soviet Union had problems with black markets as they tried to centrally plan the Economy.

 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

I would hope so.

 

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.  

I hope so.

 

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sounds pretty good.  This is not "open borders," but nor is it "as many as want to come."  Rather, it's "as many as want to come and 'are willing to work' and 'actually get and maintain a job' and 'don't have a criminal background' and 'don't use welfare' and 'leave when you are done working'")

What do you think about as a statute of limitations on immigration enforcement.

Do you think statutes of limitations on civil and criminal  actions are a good thing?

Should Immigration law be one of the very few violations without a statute of limitations on enforcement?

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I'm confused by the pearl clutching when someone enters the US illegally and yet no one is concerned when the US enters or involves itself illegally with another country. 

Get used to it.  Its normal for the government to have a different standard for itself than it has for the general public.

Lying to a police officer?  Crime!

Police officer lying to you?  Just doing his job.

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

as many as the market will allow.  

I take it you are more of a Big Government Central Planning type of guy when it comes to the labor market? 

No.  I am more of a "The government should do its job in maintaining a robust military, securing and regulating the borders, facilitating interstate and international commerce, maintaining diplomatic relations and treaties with other nation-states, upholding the Constitution, and regulating as much as is essential to keep our economy going, but otherwise it should shut up, get out of the way, and cede authority back to the States and to the People" type of guy.

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Not much faith in the free market?

A good amount, yes.  But that doesn't mean we should turn a blind eye to extra-legal influences on it, or massive international influences.

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What do you think about as a statute of limitations on immigration enforcement.

We already have it.

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Do you think statutes of limitations on civil and criminal  actions are a good thing?

Yes.  But unlawful presence is an ongoing thing, so the SOL would be tolled every day they remain here illegally.

55 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Should Immigration law be one of the very few violations without a statute of limitations on enforcement?

Where the unlawful conduct is an ongoing act (being in the U.S. in violation of its laws)?  No.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 17, 2024 by smac97

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Yes, the rhetoric from the people in charge of and set to implement these policies inspires hope that criminality will be carefully weighed and compassion will be a primary consideration in implementation.

/sarcasm

The cruelty will be a feature and not a bug.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

So you feel that unlawful presence is something on the same level as murder, which doesn't have a statute of limitations, rather than sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, theft of property which do have a statute of limitations. 

 

Good to know

Edited December 17, 2024 by Danzo

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

So you feel that unlawful presence is something on the same level as murder,

Don't be silly.  This is a serious topic, and ought to be treated with decorum.

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

which doesn't have a statute of limitations, rather than sexual assault, robbery, kidnapping, theft of property which do have a statute of limitations. 

I never said or implied any such thing.

My background is in real estate law.  I have spent quite a bit of time evaluating the statute of limitations in the context of residential loans, as this is a surprisingly unsettled area of law in Utah.  A trust deed is typically secured by a promissory note, and both documents require monthly payments until the maturity date of the note.  The note often has a long term, as much as thirty years.  Because the payment obligations render the note and trust deed executory, the statute of limitations is effectively tolled each month the borrower misses a payment.  As a result, the statute of limitations for a lender to foreclose on the security interest does not accrue until the last payment owed, and thereafter runs for six years.  Put another way, the expiration of the statute of limitations can be as long as thirty six years after the origination of the loan.

This sort of makes sense when you think about it.  During those 36 years, the borrower is living in and enjoying the home, despite having flouted the obligations associated with it.  You would be surprised at how often a borrower feels entitled to keep their house without having paid for it.  

So it is, I think, with remaining here illegally.  Entering illegally can and should have a statute of limitations as a criminal matter.  Staying here illegally is, as a civil matter, ongoing misconduct, ergo the statute of limitations never really kicks in.

Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have.  I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here.  This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues.  It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.

To some extent, I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.  But not as a wholesale thing.

32 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Good to know

Emotionalisms in lieu of substance do you no credit.  This is an important topic, and should be discussed with seriousness which is absent from your comments here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 17, 2024 by smac97

[Danzo]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Don't be silly.  This is a serious topic, and ought to be treated with decorum.

Statutes of limitations are a serious topic and I wish you would treat it with the decorum and seriousness the topic deserves

Your comparison makes no sense.

On a mortgage you are receiving consideration, and making  a promise (with the terms and conditions on the paper you are signing).

With an immigration violation, you are making no contracts, no consideration.  

 

Again, why does bank robbery get a statute of limitations, and why not walking over an imaginary line without paper work  not get a statute of limitations.

Which is more serious?

 

 

[Danzo]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here. 

Why doesn't the same logic apply to Bank Robbery, Attempted Murder, Drug Dealing, Tax evasion, Trespass, Torts and Sexual assault?  

Are you advocating that these illegal activities are not as bad?

Edited December 17, 2024 by Danzo

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Don't be silly.  This is a serious topic, and ought to be treated with decorum.

It is not a serious topic. It is a serious matter and it has an impact on a lot of lives. It should be taken seriously but virtually no one involved in making the big decisions surrounding these impending plans is taking it seriously at all. Why should anyone else pretend they are?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I never said or implied any such thing.

My background is in real estate law.  I have spent quite a bit of time evaluating the statute of limitations in the context of residential loans, as this is a surprisingly unsettled area of law in Utah.  A trust deed is typically secured by a promissory note, and both documents require monthly payments until the maturity date of the note.  The note often has a long term, as much as thirty years.  Because the payment obligations render the note and trust deed executory, the statute of limitations is effectively tolled each month the borrower misses a payment.  As a result, the statute of limitations for a lender to foreclose on the security interest does not accrue until the last payment owed, and thereafter runs for six years.  Put another way, the expiration of the statute of limitations can be as long as thirty six years after the origination of the loan.

This sort of makes sense when you think about it.  During those 36 years, the borrower is living in and enjoying the home, despite having flouted the obligations associated with it.  You would be surprised at how often a borrower feels entitled to keep their house without having paid for it.

The creation of these mortgages was a bad idea as it artificially inflates the value of a house to the point many cannot afford them.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So it is, I think, with remaining here illegally.  Entering illegally can and should have a statute of limitations as a criminal matter.  Staying here illegally is, as a civil matter, ongoing misconduct, ergo the statute of limitations never really kicks in.

Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have.  I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here.  This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues.  It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.

There is no realistic line that people are skipping. There is either coming here “illegally” or not coming at all.

We also have shown no interest in creating a realistic and fair line. Our economy depends on illegal immigration and so we pretty have to accept it. Or fix immigration in general but no one has shown much interest in that. Particularly the people who rely on cheap labor. This is punching down. It is also badly aimed punching down as we are going to hit ourselves at the same time.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

To some extent, I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.  But not as a wholesale thing.

So for the wealthy who cheated? That is probably what this means.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Emotionalisms in lieu of substance do you no credit.  This is an important topic, and should be discussed with seriousness which is absent from your comments here.

One can’t be serious without empathy and that involves emotion. This plan will be cruel and hurtful and ruin the lives of a lot of people. Your “that is what you get for breaking this law we don’t usually enforce and you had it coming” stance is also emotional. It is just not a very healthy emotion.

[Danzo]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I am more of a "The government should do its job in maintaining a robust military, securing and regulating the borders, facilitating interstate and international commerce, maintaining diplomatic relations and treaties with other nation-states, upholding the Constitution, and regulating as much as is essential to keep our economy going, but otherwise it should shut up, get out of the way, and cede authority back to the States and to the People" type of guy.

Do you want the Government to "shut up and get out of the way" when in hiring someone, or are you more in favor of the "Federal government must approving all hiring decisions" type of guy.

[Calm]

On 12/16/2024 at 11:52 PM, Dario_M said:

Really? I've never heard of those country's though. 

Fiji and Samoa are about 1/3 of the way to Hawaii from New Zealand in the South Pacific.

Excuse the dark blue spot.  It’s a finger mark I thought disappeared.

Edited December 18, 2024 by Calm

[Dario_M]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Fiji and Samoa are about 1/3 of the way to Hawaii from New Zealand in the South Pacific.

Excuse the dark blue spot.  It’s a finger mark I thought disappeared.

Oh thank you. Interesting to know. I've always had a big interest in topography. 🌎 I always wanna know exactly where every place is. 

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Danzo said:

Do you want the Government to "shut up and get out of the way" when in hiring someone, or are you more in favor of the "Federal government must approving all hiring decisions" type of guy.

I'm not sure what you mean here.  The government should hire employees based on competence, training, experience, etc.

I am generally on board with proscriptions against employment discrimination (including state-endorsed discrimination).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean here.  The government should hire employees based on competence, training, experience, etc.

I am generally on board with proscriptions against employment discrimination (including state-endorsed discrimination).

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Do you want the Government to "shut up and get out of the way" when in hiring someone, or are you more in favor of the "Federal government must approving all hiring decisions by private individuals and organizations" type of guy

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Do you want the Government to "shut up and get out of the way" when in hiring someone, or are you more in favor of the "Federal government must approving all hiring decisions by private individuals and organizations" type of guy

I think we are not communicating well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think we are not communicating well.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you think it is the role of the federal government to approve all people hired by all organizations in the United States?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Do you think it is the role of the federal government to approve all people hired by all organizations in the United States?

As I said, I'm not sure what you mean here.

Again, the government should hire employees based on competence, training, experience, etc.

Again, I am generally on board with proscriptions against employment discrimination (including state-endorsed discrimination).

In terms of citizenship as it relates to employment in the United States, I believe that jobs in America should be primarily available to Americans.  Prioritizing jobs in this country for those with citizenship helps ensure that native-born and naturalized Americans have access to employment, especially in a competitive job market.  I think this reduces unemployment, incentivizes hiring domestically, facilitates greater economic security, national security (re: jobs involving sensitive technology, information, etc.), mitigates against wage depression/dilution (since huge numbers of low/unskilled workers depress wages), and so on.  The federal government, being in charge of borders and immigration, will therefore have a substantial role to play in these matters.

I would like to better understand statistics regarding illegal immigrants and crime rates, as that seems like a pretty heavily politicized topic, with what look like polar opposite conclusions reached depending on the point of view of the news outlet.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here.  

Thanks,

-Smac