Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

So, if I  understand you correctly, you are generally in favor of smaller government intrusion in our lives, except for when it comes to making sure no one gets a job unless they have federal government permission , where you want a bigger Federal Government intrusion in our lives.

When it comes to keeping undesirable people out, The ends justify the means. 

Endless enforcement

No statutes of limitations.

The unpardonable sin.

 

 

[The Nehor]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

Well, let’s take a look shall we?

First Link: Data in general seems to back up low criminality of the undocumented but one study disagrees.

Second Link: Disingenuous garbage. “Examining the SCAAP data for ten states with the highest illegal-alien populations,” Bold of them to just outright say they are arbitrarily biasing the data. A lot of supposition and inference.

Third Link: I would sum this up as follows:

Arizona: We have data that lets us ‘look behind the curtain’ and shows that immigrants commit lots of crime.
Press: Can we see this data?
Arizona: No.

Fourth Link: Thanks for the Google search I guess.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Well, let’s take a look shall we?

First Link: Data in general seems to back up low criminality of the undocumented but one study disagrees.

Actually, if we take a look we will see that "{t}here are not readily available nationwide statistics on all crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally," and that studies are generally "limited, focusing on only one state—by necessity, since few local jurisdictions have released data on immigrant prisoners (in so-called sanctuary states and cities, intentionally so)."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

So, if I  understand you correctly,

Oi.  You are doing a very poor job so far in characterizing my position.  Hence, I think, your tendency to ignore what I am saying and re-cast it in your own slanted and provocative and inflammatory terms.

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you are generally in favor of smaller government intrusion in our lives,

Yes, particularly of the federal kind.  I am really looking forward to DOGE doing its thing.

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

except for when it comes to making sure no one gets a job unless they have federal government permission,

I believe that jobs in America should be primarily available to, and reserved for, Americans.

The federal government, being in charge of borders and immigration, will therefore have a substantial role to play in these matters.

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

where you want a bigger Federal Government intrusion in our lives.

I want the United States government to secure its borders and advance the interests of its citizens, both native-born and naturalized.

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

When it comes to keeping undesirable people out, The ends justify the means. 

I don't know what you mean by "undesirable people." 

If by that you mean illegal immigrants with past or ongoing criminal behaviors and propensities, yes, I want them generally excluded from the United States.

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

If by that you mean to impute onto me some sort of racialist sentiment, I deny the charge.

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Endless enforcement.

Ongoing enforcement, yes.  From the Church's statements on this issue:

• "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."
• "The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Which of these do you find morally problematic?  All?  Some?  None? 

What are your thoughts about the proposed "approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship"?

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

No statutes of limitations.

Someone who remains in the U.S. unlawfully is violating the law every day.  So the SOL gets tolled every day.

Again: 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.

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The unpardonable sin.

Melodramatic emotionalisms do not advance your argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 18, 2024 by smac97

[Danzo]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Someone who remains in the U.S. unlawfully is violating the law every day.  So the SOL gets tolled every day

So you do  believe being in the US without proper paperwork is worse than attempted murder and sexual assault.

The act of living, working, breathing and eating without the proper paperwork constitutes an ongoing violation of law that offends you that much.

 

 

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the proposed "approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship"?

I think I made it clear earlier.  People who want to work, maintain employment, pass a back ground check and are not using the safety net, should be allowed to come here and work, then go home when they are finished, and then come back again when they want to work again. This approach would alleviated the need to become a citizen or permanent resident.

The current system necessitates the  status of permanent resident or citizenship to gain the ability to travel back and forth across the border for most people who want to come in just to work. For most of the people I know, the first thing someone does when they get permanent residence status is return to their home to visit, at least.  

The amount of people here working should be controlled by the market, not by quota or Big Government.

 

And their needs to be a statute of limitations on immigrant enforcement

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Someone who remains in the U.S. unlawfully is violating the law every day.  So the SOL gets tolled every day

So

Your posts in which you (mis)state and (mis)characterize my statements by prefacing your distorted version of them with "So..." remind me of this YouTube video making fun of Disney's Frozen:

A partial transcript:

Quote

Troll: She will be okay.

Elsa: But she wont remember I have powers? 0:28

Troll: It's for the best. Listen to me, Elsa. 0:32 Your power will only grow. 0:35 There is beauty in it, but also great danger! 0:39 You must learn to control it. Fear will be your enemy. 0:45

Elsa’s Dad: So you're saying we should lock her up in a castle until she's safe to be around. 0:50 0:50

Troll: What? That's not what I said, that's a terrible idea! 0:53 No!

Elsa’s Dad: So you're saying we should teach her to be scared of herself. 0:57

Troll: Are you even listening? 0:58 I just said fear is her enemy.

Elsa’s Mom: So you're saying to teach you to bundle all her 1:02 feelings up until she gets this.. 1:04 freedom complex? And wait and see if she gets over this whole powers thing? 1:08

Troll: Oh wow. You guys are bad parents! No I'm not saying to do any of those things. 1:13

Elsa’s Dad: Sooo you're saying...

Troll: Stop saying sooooooo! 1:16 Every time you say that you say the wrong thing! ....

Elsa’s Mom: Conceal don't feel? 1:20

Troll: Oh my gosh! The answer is love! Okay?! 1:23 Wow! Love thaws, pure love heals!

 

It would be nice if you stopped distorting and mischaracterizing what I am saying.  To wit:

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

you do  believe being in the US without proper paperwork is worse than attempted murder and sexual assault.

See?

How very unserious you are being.

56 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The act of living, working, breathing and eating without the proper paperwork constitutes an ongoing violation of law that offends you that much.

Let's say that you go on vacation, and while you are gone some squatters move into your home. 

You arrive home and ask the squatters to leave, and they refuse. 

You produce the warranty deed by which title to your home was transferred to you. 

In response, the squatters say stuff like

• "You believe that our being in this house without 'proper paperwork' is worse than attempted murder and sexual assault," and
• "Our act of living, working, breathing and eating in this house without the 'proper paperwork' constitutes an ongoing violation of law that offends you that much." 

Would you, at that point, abandon any claim of ownership to the house and go live somewhere else?  Or does "paperwork" matter, after all?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 18, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

What are your thoughts about the proposed "approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship"?

I think I made it clear earlier. 

Your emotionalisms and personal invective are impeding communication.  Let's get past that, okay?

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

People who want to work, maintain employment, pass a back ground check and are not using the safety net, should be allowed to come here and work, then go home when they are finished, and then come back again when they want to work again. This approach would alleviated the need to become a citizen or permanent resident.

Okay.  This sounds a lot like "squar{ing} themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."  Is that a fair characterization?

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The current system necessitates the  status of permanent resident or citizenship to gain the ability to travel back and forth across the border for most people who want to come in just to work. For most of the people I know, the first thing someone does when they get permanent residence status is return to their home to visit, at least.  

The amount of people here working should be controlled by the market, not by quota or Big Government.

I think the amount of people entering and remaining in the United States should be controlled by the law.  There are too many distorting influences on "the market" to make it a reliable metric as to immigration.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

And their needs to be a statute of limitations on immigrant enforcement

If I break the law today, the statute of limitations for that violation of the law commences today and continues for a set period of time.

If I break the law every day, the statute of limitations is re-set every day.

People who are in the United State illegally are breaking the law every day.

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.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

f I break the law every day, the statute of limitations is re-set every day.

People who are in the United State illegally are breaking the law every day.

This really makes no sense in the context of immigration.

What are they doing every day?  Existing.  Living. Breathing. Eating. working. Sleeping.

When doing these things is breaking the law, the law is what is broken.

 

[Danzo]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the amount of people entering and remaining in the United States should be controlled by the law.  There are too many distorting influences on "the market" to make it a reliable metric as to immigration.

Ok, I think that in this case you make it clear that central planning by Big Government is more effective than the Free Market.

I feel that history as well as basic economic principles of supply and demand show otherwise.

I guess we will have to disagree on this

[Danzo]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's say that you go on vacation, and while you are gone some squatters move into your home. 

No one went on vacation.

 

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You arrive home and ask the squatters to leave, and they refuse.

We aren't talking about trespass and adverse possession,  But Trespass does have a statute of limitations, which can result in title being transferred to the trespasser.   

Do you agree trespass should have a statute of limitations?

 

[smac97]

Just now, Danzo said:

No one went on vacation.

It's a hypothetical.

Just now, Danzo said:

We aren't talking about trespass and adverse possession, 

You aren't answering the questions being put to you.  You have that right, of course, but it suggests you can't answer and maintain your position and be consistent.

Just now, Danzo said:

But Trespass does have a statute of limitations, which can result in title being transferred to the trespasser.   

You know, I don't think trespass works that way.  Adverse possession can, though.

But again, you aren't answering the question being posed.

Just now, Danzo said:

Do you agree trespass should have a statute of limitations?

Yes.  But if someone is committing trespass on a daily basis...

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  You are doing a very poor job so far in characterizing my position.  Hence, I think, your tendency to ignore what I am saying and re-cast it in your own slanted and provocative and inflammatory terms.

Yes, particularly of the federal kind.  I am really looking forward to DOGE doing its thing.

I believe that jobs in America should be primarily available to, and reserved for, Americans.

The federal government, being in charge of borders and immigration, will therefore have a substantial role to play in these matters.

I want the United States government to secure its borders and advance the interests of its citizens, both native-born and naturalized.

I don't know what you mean by "undesirable people." 

If by that you mean illegal immigrants with past or ongoing criminal behaviors and propensities, yes, I want them generally excluded from the United States.

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

If by that you mean to impute onto me some sort of racialist sentiment, I deny the charge.

Ongoing enforcement, yes.  From the Church's statements on this issue:

• "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."
• "The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Which of these do you find morally problematic?  All?  Some?  None? 

What are your thoughts about the proposed "approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship"?

Someone who remains in the U.S. unlawfully is violating the law every day.  So the SOL gets tolled every day.

Again: 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.

Melodramatic emotionalisms do not advance your argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

DOGE, now that's pretty funny, 🤣 nothing official imo.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

 

If I break the law every day, the statute of limitations is re-set every day.

People who are in the United State illegally are breaking the law every day.

 

This really makes no sense in the context of immigration.

I think it does.  YMMV.

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What are they doing every day?  Existing.  Living. Breathing. Eating. working. Sleeping.  When doing these things is breaking the law, the law is what is broken.

They are living in the United States in violation of its laws.

Again, imagine a squatter refusing to leave your home on this basis: "What are we doing every day in this house?  Existing.  Living. Breathing. Eating. working. Sleeping.  How dare you ask us to leave just because we don't have 'proper paperwork'!  When doing these things in this house is breaking the law, the law is what is broken."

Again, would you buy this line of reasoning?  Would you give up your house to the squatters?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Oi.  You are doing a very poor job so far in characterizing my position.  Hence, I think, your tendency to ignore what I am saying and re-cast it in your own slanted and provocative and inflammatory terms.

Yes, particularly of the federal kind.  I am really looking forward to DOGE doing its thing.

I believe that jobs in America should be primarily available to, and reserved for, Americans.

The federal government, being in charge of borders and immigration, will therefore have a substantial role to play in these matters.

I want the United States government to secure its borders and advance the interests of its citizens, both native-born and naturalized.

I don't know what you mean by "undesirable people." 

If by that you mean illegal immigrants with past or ongoing criminal behaviors and propensities, yes, I want them generally excluded from the United States.

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

If by that you mean to impute onto me some sort of racialist sentiment, I deny the charge.

Ongoing enforcement, yes.  From the Church's statements on this issue:

• "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."
• "The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

Which of these do you find morally problematic?  All?  Some?  None? 

What are your thoughts about the proposed "approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship"?

Someone who remains in the U.S. unlawfully is violating the law every day.  So the SOL gets tolled every day.

Again: 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.

Melodramatic emotionalisms do not advance your argument.

Thanks,

-Smac

DOGE, is it official? I watched Sound of Music last Sunday. When Captain Von Trapp tears the Nazi flag down from his house. It's how I feel now with the way things are looking.

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Let's say that you go on vacation, and while you are gone some squatters move into your home. 

You arrive home and ask the squatters to leave, and they refuse. 

You produce the warranty deed by which title to your home was transferred to you. 

In response, the squatters say stuff like

• "You believe that our being in this house without 'proper paperwork' is worse than attempted murder and sexual assault," and
• "Our act of living, working, breathing and eating in this house without the 'proper paperwork' constitutes an ongoing violation of law that offends you that much." 

Would you, at that point, abandon any claim of ownership to the house and go live somewhere else?  Or does "paperwork" matter, after all?

I think that your example is spot on.

If someone is trespassing on my property and that trespass is "open and notorious", and I don't file any action against them for a particular time period.  the statute of limitation for that action expires and I lose title to the property.  This is adverse position and the reason I lose title is because I didn't take any action.

I would say if someone resides here in violation of immigration law and that is "open and notorious" for a period of time and the government doesn't take any action for a particular time, then the government should lose the right to take action and the person gets to stay here.

See how simple that is?

Edited December 18, 2024 by Danzo

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, imagine a squatter refusing to leave your home on this basis: "What are we doing every day in this house?  Existing.  Living. Breathing. Eating. working. Sleeping.  How dare you ask us to leave just because we don't have 'proper paperwork'!  When doing these things in this house is breaking the law, the law is what is broken."

Again, would you buy this line of reasoning?  Would you give up your house to the squatters?  

The law says you have to give up the property to the squatters if they do it for long enough and you don't take action.

Why is immigration different?

 

[OGHoosier]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

DOGE, is it official? I watched Sound of Music last Sunday. When Captain Von Trapp tears the Nazi flag down from his house. It's how I feel now with the way things are looking.

The Department of Government Efficiency does exist but it's essentially an independent advisory board that's not on the federal budget. More like a White House working group than anything else. 

For my part I find it encouraging as business-as-usual seems utterly incapable of addressing the risk of sovereign default. If something like DOGE doesn't happen we might as well just pre-emptively declare sovereign bankruptcy and load the entire American retirement ecosystem into a circus cannon now.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Actually, if we take a look we will see that "{t}here are not readily available nationwide statistics on all crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally," and that studies are generally "limited, focusing on only one state—by necessity, since few local jurisdictions have released data on immigrant prisoners (in so-called sanctuary states and cities, intentionally so)."

And the a lot of smaller studies that seem to back up average to low criminality and one that disagrees.

Also just realized that one that disagrees appears to be the one from the third link where they refuse to release the actual data. So guess we can label that disagreeing study as dubious or (if you are not feeling charitable) potentially made up.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

The Department of Government Efficiency does exist but it's essentially an independent advisory board that's not on the federal budget. More like a White House working group than anything else. 

For my part I find it encouraging as business-as-usual seems utterly incapable of addressing the risk of sovereign default. If something like DOGE doesn't happen we might as well just pre-emptively declare sovereign bankruptcy and load the entire American retirement ecosystem into a circus cannon now.

I find it discouraging because it is being run by morons who don’t understand how government works or what things are necessary. So far the planned leadership seems to be the opinion that we should burn down Chesterton’s fence and hope for the best.

Also there is currently no real risk of sovereign default.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

DOGE, is it official? I watched Sound of Music last Sunday. When Captain Von Trapp tears the Nazi flag down from his house. It's how I feel now with the way things are looking.

You and others might want to be careful if you want the thread to stay open.  At least embed these kind of comments in others that aren’t so Godwiny.  
 

Not that there haven’t been things that crossed the line already…. 

[smac97]

The status quo cannot continue.  The Church's previous statements are quite correct:

• "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas."
• "The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship."
• "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."
• We acknowledge that every nation has the right to enforce its laws and secure its borders. All persons subject to a nation’s laws are accountable for their acts in relation to them.

A sampling:

Chicago Mayor Boots Angry Residents From Meeting After Being Criticized for Prioritizing Illegal Aliens

Quote

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson confronted a fierce backlash during a city council meeting on Monday from residents who are fed up with his policies on immigration and fiscal management.

The room was filled with shouting Chicago residents voicing their displeasure at Johnson’s approach to these issues. The fracas became so loud that the mayor ordered officers to remove several attendees from the chambers.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson on Monday ordered the removal of people from a city council meeting after protests over his actions on issues involving migrants.

The instruction followed the public comment period, during which some people wearing shirts reading “Chicago flips red.”

“Sergeant at arms, please remove these individuals from the chambers,” Mayor Johnson said.

Footage of the meeting does not show what any attendees were doing when the mayor ordered their removal.

One person wearing a “Chicago flips red” shirt, identified as Jessica Jackson, told Mayor Johnson he was going to be “held accountable” for directing money toward migrants, citing an executive order from last year establishing a deputy mayor for “immigrant, migrant and refugee rights.”

“We gonna talk about this budget, about the strange things that’s happening, because again, your name was on this executive order of May 2023, this executive order for immigration, migrants and refugee rights,” Jackson said. “You caused all this money to go to illegal immigrants.”

The mayor and several of his vocal critics are black, so casual slurs re: along the lines of "people who oppose illegal immigration hate brown and black people!" won't really work here.

Quote

The Windy City’s $16.6 billion budget includes a $40 million short-term loan to delay the repayment of a debt, which also angered attendees.

Another resident named Sharon Abbott slammed Johnson, accusing him of violating his constitutional duties. She argued that “No one appointed a monarch to rule over the people of Chicago” and said, “Your duty is to serve the public, and you are bound by the parameters of the Constitution only to act by the consent of the people.”

Chicago has spent about $574.5 million on illegal immigrants and asylum seekers over recent years as the border crisis continues. One resident noted that the city is “$1.2 billion in the deficit because of this illegal immigration scam” and referred to it as a “Ponzi scheme.”

I wonder if most or all of that $574.5 million might have been better spent improving the lives of American citizens and lawful immigrants (or, better yet, left to the people).

Quote

Johnson continues to face pressure over his migrant policies and his failure to address the continuing influx of illegals into the city. While he has obtained $200 in state and federal funds to deal with the issue, residents feel they have been left behind. This is especially true of Black residents who are struggling.

So when the city reopened Wadsworth last year to shelter hundreds of migrants without seeking community input, it added insult to injury. Across Chicago, Black residents are frustrated that long-standing needs are not being met while the city’s newly arrived are cared for with a sense of urgency, and with their tax dollars.

“Our voices are not valued nor heard,” says Genesis Young, a lifelong Chicagoan who lives near Wadsworth.

Chicago is one of several big American cities grappling with a surge of migrants. The Republican governor of Texas has been sending them by the busload to highlight his grievances with the Biden administration’s immigration policy.

This debate mirrors others occurring in major cities across the country – especially in New York City, where Mayor Eric Adams has struggled to alleviate the impact of the border crisis.

Again, the "You're racist!" line doesn't seem to work well here.

This guy said the quiet part out loud:

Quote

Illegal immigrants as "part" of an "electoral coalition."

That's part of the calculus, then.

Another: Powerful Groups Are Hiding Facts About Illegal Voting by Non-Citizens

Quote

In May 2024, Just Facts published an eye-opening study which found that roughly:

• 2 to 5 million non-citizens are illegally registered to vote in the United States.
• 1.0 to 2.7 million of them will illegally vote in the 2024 presidential and congressional elections unless better anti-fraud measures are implemented.

Another: US spent $151 BILLION on illegal immigration in 2023 alone

Quote

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has revealed that the US government spent around $151 billion in 2023 on illegal immigration, which is 2.6 percent of the entire US government's $6.1 trillion in annual spending.

The DOGE X account posted numbers in relation to the amount spent on illegal immigration per year and said, "In 2023 alone, illegal immigration cost taxpayers $150.7 billion." DOGE added other numbers for context with adjusted inflation numbers, saying that World War 1 was $334 billion, the Apollo Space Program cost the government $257 billion, and the Manhattan Project amounted to $30 billion.

The figure as reported by DOGE would be comparable to the $151 billion the government spent on security programs for veterans and those who survive them in 2023, per the Daily Mail. 

I wonder if that $151 billion might have been better spent on improving the lives of American citizens and lawful residents (or, better yet, refunded to the people). 

Another: Survey Highlights the Impact of Mass Illegal Immigration on Schools

Quote

Reuters conducted a somewhat informal survey of school systems to see how the rush of immigrant children has affected schools. The site contacted school districts across the country, both large and small systems, urban and rural schools, to ask them about what the crisis has done to our public schools:

More than half a million school-age migrant children have arrived in the U.S. since 2022, according to immigration court records collected by Syracuse University, exacerbating overcrowding in some classrooms; compounding teacher and budget shortfalls; forcing teachers to grapple with language barriers and inflaming social tensions in places unaccustomed to educating immigrant students.

To gauge the impact of immigration on public schools across the U.S., Reuters sent a survey to more than 10,000 school districts. Of the 75 school districts that responded, serving a total of 2.3 million children or about 5% of the public school population, a third said the increase in immigrant children had had a “significant” impact on their school district.

The school systems that responded included districts in 23 states. Over half of the districts who answered questions said that they have had to hire more English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers, while 15 districts mentioned the difficulties teachers and administrators are having when it comes to communicating with parents.

“Textbooks are not in their language. Resources are not easily available. Google Translate does not work that great,” one Ohio administrator told Reuters.

Several districts mentioned that their teachers didn’t have sufficient training to handle the influx of immigrant kids, and most of the school systems that responded to the survey said they would welcome any training that they could get. Training issues included overcoming language and cultural barriers and helping kids deal with trauma.

Some school systems are also reeling from the general increase in students. “Anytime you have an unpredictable pattern of student enrollment all at once, the strain it creates on the system is tremendous,” one superintendent told Reuters, but the immigration crisis “required our system to stand up processes across the city to not only communicate with families but also support them in getting their basic needs met in order to have students coming to school ready to learn.”

I think we need to regulate the number of people coming to the United States.  Perhaps we need to make sure they are ready to live here.  Perhaps there should be some vetting and structure to the process, rather than the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" that some seem to be advocating.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The law says you have to give up the property to the squatters if they do it for long enough and you don't take action.

Is that a yes, then?

50 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Why is immigration different?

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

Again, during this process 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.  

Again:

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.

Again:

Quote

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.

Again:

Quote

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is that a yes, then?

It doesn't matter, both you and I would have to, by law give up our house to the squatters if we didn't take any action.

That is what a statute of limitations means it this context?

Why should the law treat immigration differently than it does squatters?

 

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

In other words, arbitrary enforcement that relies on the whims of the people enforcing it.  Your compassion and definition of "Baddie"  may be different from my compassion (as this discussion makes clear).