Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Trump and Immigration: Doing it right and doing it wrong

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump and Immigration: Doing it right and doing it wrong

    All countries have immigration policies, and have different immigration views and goals. That's fine. Personally, I'm not a fan of high immigration, and wish immigration was a lot lower in my own country for a variety of reasons, and I don't particularly like 'multiculturalism' for a variety of reasons.

    But, given a particular stance on immigration, there are sensible ways to implement it using the law, and there are dumb ways to implement it using silly laws that don't achieve the desired goals.

    So it is important to identify (a) what you are trying to achieve, (b) why you are trying to achieve it, and (c) craft laws carefully so they achieve the desired goal in the desired way.

    The first thing to think about is that there are 5 main types of foreigners coming to your country:
    1. Tourists
    2. Refugees
    3. Illegal immigrants
    4. Standard legal immigrants who are seeking residency and citizenship through normal channels
    5. People who have been already granted residency and/or citizenship (e.g. green card holders), and temporarily left the country on a holiday or to visit their relatives in their old country.

    Each of these have different types of issues related to them. For example, tourists are something that usually everyone wants to see more of because they bring in money for the tourism industry and the country generally. But the attackers in 9/11 entered the country as 'tourists', obtaining tourist visas. So that introduces contradictory desires - on the one hand the US doesn't want to "crack down on tourists" because getting rid of all tourists would deal incalculable damage to the US economy, but it makes sense to try and prevent a repeat of 9/11 by identifying particular policies that could have prevented it and implementing them. e.g. by running an extensive background check when a single male in the age range of the attackers from the countries the attackers came from and related countries tries to obtain a tourist visa. Whereas "banning all tourists" would be a silly response.

    To achieve a sensible response rather than a silly response involves researching the facts to create a carefully targeted law that is neither too broad nor too narrow and achieves the carefully stated goals in a carefully thought out way. This requires consultations with experts, discussions with lawyers, consultations with allies etc.

    Whereas what you don't do, is pick countries at random, make no distinction between the different types of immigrants from those countries, consult no lawyers or allies on the matter, and simply ban them all suddenly and without warning, and have no rational reason for the ban. e.g. Trump's executive order, which failed in court because the court ruled essentially "yes, as president, you have a great deal of power as to immigration policy, but you've got to be able to demonstrate that your policy is rational in some way and is aimed at achieving a particular thing".

    A lot of Trump supporters cite national security as a major concern for them, and their belief in the danger of Islamic terrorism leads them to want to prevent such people from entering the country. There are a few problems with this. Firstly, they tend to have over-inflated beliefs in the levels of danger posed by Islamic terrorism, as the number of people who die in Islamic terrorist attacks is not actually very large compared to the numbers of people who die from other preventable things (e.g. toddlers with handguns) that these Trump supporters show no interest in trying to prevent.

    Secondly, stopping people by religion seems dubious because do you ask them as they enter the country if they are Muslim? What is to stop them lying? Do you demand that they curse Mohammed and eat pork in front of you to "prove it"? Isn't that likely to annoy Muslim countries and cause some zealots to enter the US and fake your test and then bomb you just to demonstrate their annoyance? And isn't this in danger of running afoul of the US constitution in any case as it's religious discrimination?

    One better way to go about this sort of thing (which Trump got half-correct in his executive order) is to be a bit selective about the countries you're admitting new immigrants from (although you need to do a lot better than Trump did in distinguishing between people of type 1-5 above (e.g. don't block green card holders), and a lot more sensible than Trump in your choices of countries). Historically, how most countries did this was using a policy of "culturally similar immigration": The immigration authorities were much much more likely to let you in if you were from a country that was deemed 'culturally similar' to the country you were trying to enter. However, a lot of Western countries, including the US, dropped the cultural similarity requirement at some point in the 20th century, passing a law to say that discrimination on the basis of country of origin isn't allowed. So a potentially sensible way for Trump to move forward, depending on his precise goals, is to undo that law and reinstate a policy of 'cultural similarity' of country of origin. Doing so cannot be done by executive order and would require Trump to get the Republican-controlled congress to pass a law explicitly undoing the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that outlawed this policy. (Unfortunately, I don't believe Trump understands basic civics with regard to how government works and doesn't understand the idea of working through congress to pass laws and thinks he is some sort of dictator who can just sign whatever executive order he feels like.) And then the immigration department, which Trump would have control over via his cabinet appointees, would be given leeway in the law to interpret what 'culturally similar' meant precisely and could tweak what countries they were allowing immigrants from.

    Another way to go about this sort of thing, which my own country is now using is put a stringent requirement on the quality of English that must spoken by the potential immigrant. Requiring that someone must be able to read and write and speak to a very high or near-native level of English (there are formal testable levels of English quality you can tie this to) is a nifty way of filtering immigrants that bypasses accusations that you are filtering by religion or country of origin (but which nonetheless very effectively filters by religion and country of origin). This sort of criteria is very rationally defensible - e.g. "if people coming to our country can't communicate with other people that's going to cause problems". Though I note that English is spoken near-natively in India and India has large Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh populations so this policy opens you up to high Indian immigration with the corresponding religions. I am uncertain of the precise state of US law concerning a requirement that immigrants meet a language criteria, so I don't know for sure whether Trump would need congress to pass a law or whether he could do this by executive order, but I suspect that he could do it very easily without even needing an executive order and that he could just pick up the phone and talk to the people in the immigration department and get them to tweak their immigration criteria so that the level of required proficiency in English was higher.

    So, speaking for myself, as someone who's not a fan of Islam because it's a violent and stupid religion, and also is not a fan of people coming to my country who don't speak my language and whom I can't talk to, I can totally see why various Americans might want to block various types of immigrants. But for goodness sake do it right and do it sensibly. Don't hyperventilate about refugees, when refugees have never done any terrorist attacks in the US. Don't randomly choose 7 countries that have never done attacks in the US and randomly block people from those countries.
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

  • #2
    Tldr
    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
      Tldr
      That's apparently Trump's problem too. He likes his briefing papers shorter than "a single page, with lots of graphics and maps."

      As far as TL;DR goes: I gave some suggestions for how Trump could lower immigration in a way the courts won't throw a hissy at.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        That's apparently Trump's problem too. He likes his briefing papers shorter than "a single page, with lots of graphics and maps."
        Not too many words and lots of pictures, I used to be like that. When I was eight.
        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
          Not too many words and lots of pictures, I used to be like that. When I was eight.
          I truly believe Trump has a reading/learning disability, and that the reason he speaks in such a rambling fashion is because that's how he thinks. I'd say he's approximately equivalent to an 8 year old in thought and reading level. Trump says he never reads books, and others close to him say he's never read a book in his life.

          Bearing in mind that Trump doesn't read books, and that Trump asked his foreign policies adviser three times why he couldn't use nukes, these comments jumped out at me during his rambly recent press conference:
          We're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they. I've been briefed. I can tell you one thing about a briefing, that we're allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it, nuclear holocaust would be like no other. They're a very powerful nuclear country, and so are we. If we have a good relationship with Russia — believe me — that's a good thing, not a bad thing.
          It's nice his aides have taken the opportunity in these briefings to ram into this thick skull that a nuclear holocaust is a bad thing. It was probably the only thing on the page they briefed him with.

          Not that Trump really understands nukes, cos elsewhere we got the marvelous claim of "You know what uranium is, right? A thing called nuclear weapons." while he was telling rambling lies about Hillary Clinton gifting the Russians with 20% of America's uranium.
          "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
          "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
          "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Another way to go about this sort of thing, which my own country is now using is put a stringent requirement on the quality of English that must spoken by the potential immigrant. Requiring that someone must be able to read and write and speak to a very high or near-native level of English (there are formal testable levels of English quality you can tie this to) is a nifty way of filtering immigrants that bypasses accusations that you are filtering by religion or country of origin (but which nonetheless very effectively filters by religion and country of origin). This sort of criteria is very rationally defensible - e.g. "if people coming to our country can't communicate with other people that's going to cause problems". Though I note that English is spoken near-natively in India and India has large Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh populations so this policy opens you up to high Indian immigration with the corresponding religions. I am uncertain of the precise state of US law concerning a requirement that immigrants meet a language criteria, so I don't know for sure whether Trump would need congress to pass a law or whether he could do this by executive order, but I suspect that he could do it very easily without even needing an executive order and that he could just pick up the phone and talk to the people in the immigration department and get them to tweak their immigration criteria so that the level of required proficiency in English was higher.

            So, speaking for myself, as someone who's not a fan of Islam because it's a violent and stupid religion, and also is not a fan of people coming to my country who don't speak my language and whom I can't talk to, I can totally see why various Americans might want to block various types of immigrants. But for goodness sake do it right and do it sensibly. Don't hyperventilate about refugees, when refugees have never done any terrorist attacks in the US. Don't randomly choose 7 countries that have never done attacks in the US and randomly block people from those countries.
            FWIW, I have church brethren who live in the US and, from what what I hear, have learned rudimentary English in around two decades. I have always wondered why in all this time they just haven't had the initiative to learn the language better, even though it could only help them. That's as far as the adults are concerned; the children born there are doing fine in their English.

            The last time I went to Santiago (Chile's capital), I also saw lots of immigrants working as merchants who could barely say a handful of Spanish words. So I guess I can sympathize with the desire for people to have a good enough grasp of the language of whatever country they are going to, if only to function better in society.
            We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore on Christ's behalf: 'Be reconciled to God!!'
            - 2 Corinthians 5:20.
            In deviantArt: ll-bisto-ll.deviantart.com
            Christian art and more: Christians.deviantart.com

            Comment


            • #7
              Wow we should have elected Starlight as POTUS. He knows better than everyone how to "do things right"

              Have you sent your plan to the White House yet?

              Originally posted by Starlight
              One better way to go about this sort of thing (which Trump got half-correct in his executive order) is to be a bit selective about the countries you're admitting new immigrants from
              Oh wait. That IS what Trump was doing. Never mind.

              As far as stopping tourists or people who already had green cards, that was just temporary while they worked out the plan. Stop everyone, then start letting the greencard people back in, then tourists after vetting, and then immigrants after serious vetting.

              The biggest problem is that the governments in these countries are pretty much in chaos and can't help with vetting these people and doing background checks. You can't just take an immigrants word that they are not terrorists. What do you think terrorists will say "Sure, I am terrorist and belong to ISIS. Allah Akbar!"

              Comment


              • #8
                Starlight:
                I think that was a pretty sensible post.

                One area that you didn't address, but that bothers me, is that the law isn't being followed.
                It is fine with me if someone wants to open/close a border but I expect the law to be obeyed (or changed).
                Sanctuary cities shouldn't happen, executive orders that tell agents to 'stand down' shouldn't happen.

                Other than that, not a bad think piece.

                -Meh Gerbil
                Actually YOU put Trump in the White House. He wouldn't have gotten 1% of the vote if it wasn't for the widespread spiritual and cultural devastation caused by progressive policies. There's no "this country" left with your immigration policies, your "allies" are worthless and even more suicidal than you are and democracy is a sick joke that I hope nobody ever thinks about repeating when the current order collapses. - Darth_Executor striking a conciliatory note in Civics 101

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  That's apparently Trump's problem too.
                  1. If you want your posts read don't spend two paragraphs virtue signalling before getting to the point.
                  2. The dissolution of western nations is the goal of both social progressives and corporate billionaires (the current rulers of the world) so all plans that threaten this (including yours, Gerbil says your plan is good so it's probably just as garbage as his campaigning skills), would be challenged in court and decided not based on the law but based on whether progressives got enough of their judges in to rewrite the law.
                  "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                  There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Meh Gerbil View Post
                    Starlight:
                    I think that was a pretty sensible post.

                    One area that you didn't address, but that bothers me, is that the law isn't being followed.
                    It is fine with me if someone wants to open/close a border but I expect the law to be obeyed (or changed).
                    Sanctuary cities shouldn't happen, executive orders that tell agents to 'stand down' shouldn't happen.

                    Other than that, not a bad think piece.

                    -Meh Gerbil
                    Yeah, we'd be doing a lot better immigration-wise if the laws on the books were simply followed. Making more laws that aren't going to be followed won't help matters much.

                    I think even Trump agrees at this point that the EO could have been better crafted, which why he's more focused on writing a better one than appealing the first one.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      Wow we should have elected Starlight as POTUS.
                      Sure, but your constitution prevents it because I wasn't born in the US (although conservatives overlooked that for Cruz and McCain).

                      He knows better than everyone how to "do things right"

                      Have you sent your plan to the White House yet?
                      Well I'm more educated than anyone in Trump's cabinet or inner circle of advisers. But by all reports the internal administration in the white house is currently a complete mess and nobody can figure out what's going on, and hence we see dumb things like Trump issuing his executive order on immigration before he'd sent it around to the State Department or to the lawyers for review, and hence not surprisingly the thing was poorly written and the courts struck it down.

                      You can't just take an immigrants word that they are not terrorists. What do you think terrorists will say "Sure, I am terrorist and belong to ISIS. Allah Akbar!"
                      Do you know that your country does actually ask a couple of questions like this to people entering the US? I always find it pretty funny. One of the sillier questions that makes me giggle is "are you entering America for illegal or immoral purposes?" I mean, who seriously says 'yes' to that? And what exactly is an 'immoral purpose'?
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Sure, but your constitution prevents it because I wasn't born in the US (although conservatives overlooked that for Cruz and McCain).

                        Well I'm more educated than anyone in Trump's cabinet or inner circle of advisers. But by all reports the internal administration in the white house is currently a complete mess and nobody can figure out what's going on, and hence we see dumb things like Trump issuing his executive order on immigration before he'd sent it around to the State Department or to the lawyers for review, and hence not surprisingly the thing was poorly written and the courts struck it down.

                        Do you know that your country does actually ask a couple of questions like this to people entering the US? I always find it pretty funny. One of the sillier questions that makes me giggle is "are you entering America for illegal or immoral purposes?" I mean, who seriously says 'yes' to that? And what exactly is an 'immoral purpose'?
                        LOL. yeah.

                        I think they do that so if they arrest you later for something they have covered their butt and have one more charge against you. entering the country under false circumstances

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Sure, but your constitution prevents it because I wasn't born in the US (although conservatives overlooked that for Cruz and McCain).
                          Being born in the United States is not the criteria for being president. Being a natural born citizen is, and while the constitution does not explicitly define it, it has been interpreted as meaning being a citizen from the moment of birth. This is automatically conferred by being born in the United States but does extend to some situations in which people are born outside of the country, and John McCain and Ted Cruz appear to have satisfied those situations, though admittedly no high court ever ruled on their specific circumstances because the entire question became moot when they didn't become president.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                            This is automatically conferred by being born in the United States but does extend to some situations in which people are born outside of the country, and John McCain and Ted Cruz appear to have satisfied those situations, though admittedly no high court ever ruled on their specific circumstances because the entire question became moot when they didn't become president.
                            But due to a huge number of US conservatives being utterly unprincipled, they kicked up a huge fuss about whether or not Obama was born in America, but they decided it was fine not to be born in America with regard to McCain and Cruz.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              But due to a huge number of US conservatives being utterly unprincipled, they kicked up a huge fuss about whether or not Obama was born in America, but they decided it was fine not to be born in America with regard to McCain and Cruz.
                              If their accusations had been true, Obama would have been ineligible because he would have been both born outside the US and did not meet the criteria for being a natural born citizen. The problem was that the accusations weren't true to begin with, as he was quite clearly born in the United States. So while I do think the hoopla about Obama's birth was a bunch of nonsense, it isn't really analogous. Also, a "huge number" of Republicans didn't do it, the birther movement was rather fringe despite the attention it got. Heck, the first guy to try to bring the thing to court, Philip Berg, was a Democrat.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                              16 responses
                              160 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post One Bad Pig  
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              53 responses
                              400 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Mountain Man  
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              25 responses
                              114 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              33 responses
                              198 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Roy
                              by Roy
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              84 responses
                              379 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Working...
                              X