Immigration Reform

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
Figured instead of kicking a dead horse in the political thread's, maybe we could discuss immigration reform at least what we think it should be moving forward. Not asking for the standard Republican/Democrat response. But personal opinion and thoughts. I'm going to spell out my opinions and thoughts, but I'm not exclusively tied to them. So I'd like to read everyones opinion and how they come to them.

Leave the Hillary said, Trump said bullshit out of it. Both of them can jump off a bridge for all I care.

My thoughts:

Border security needs to happen, not a wall (maybe in some areas) but true security. Put the assets and manpower on the border and lock it down. What should that mean, we should be grabing 85-90% of illegal border crossings at the actaul border.

Legally immigrating or people seaking a work visa to our country should be bringing something to the table. Skilled labor to Scientists and Doctors. You don't just get to come here because it sucks at home, you need to bring something to the table.

Criminals, anyone here illegally who has committed a felony crime is immediately deported and barred from future entry. You commit a felony crime you are out for good.

Undocumented or illegals who are not felons, should be given a pathway to legal status. Not an automatic citizenship, but a way to get a visa or residency, so that they can work towards citizenship like everyone else. They need to be afforded an opportunity to get right, kinda a one chance to get it right. Once afforded that opportunity, if they fail to maintain legal status, they are deported with a 3 year ban for first offence, 5 year ban for second, and lifetime ban for the third. If they get caught here illegally while on ban, mandatory 18 months in jail, and lifetime ban. Essentially make it easier to be here legally, but severely punish those who decide to not maintain legal status.

Migrant workers, specifically agricultural workers. We need a databasewhere these people can register quickly and without significant red tape involved. Simply have a Farmer accountability system, where each worker and worker family member can be registered to each farm. When the migrate during seasons, allow a 30 day window to register at the next farm, if they're going home just tag them as inactive, if they fail to register at the next farm, or go inactive the right way, they get a warrant for deportation and 12 month ban from the program. If a farmer fails to comply, he gets a 12 month ban from use if migrant work force. Just make it easier for the farmers and the worker's, that way things can be tracked without issue. When people fuck up they get a penalty.

Medical benefits, simply put we require an immigrant to carry automotive insurance to drive a car here, they should be required to maintain health insurance to have a visa or residency. They fail to maintain it or lap, they get a 30 day deportation notice. Get insurance or go home. Have a special program for migrant workers, that's dually cost shared between the farmer and the migrant worker. Something that is inexpensive, but allows for emergency and general health care. No preexisting conditions or major medical care, outside of work related injuries and illness, etc.

Anchor-baby, any child born here should have the right to apply for citizenship at the age of 18. However, until the 18th birthday, or a naturalized parent (legal guardian) the child remains with the family. Essentially, allow the child to remain, go to school receive benefits as long as the child is with the family here or a legal responsible gurdian. If the family heads home, the child goes as well, unless legal guardianship is established. Once the child is an adult, the child chooses citizenship.

Social Security, Welfare, Medicare, you get what you pay in. If you choose to pay in as an immigrant, you cannot draw benefits until naturalized as a citizen. Migrant workers would be excluded from paying in as well as from receiving benefits.

Education for minor's, standard public education for 18 and under, with a special child education tax levied on immigrants and migrant workers. They can go to school, but the family needs to contribute to the educational costs.

Higher education, no government grants or programs for student visas, immigrants, or migrant workers. Either they pay out of pocket or seek private scholarships and grants. Excluding special government program's for individuals who commit to 10 years of specific service from educational training. Example, special grant to become a medical doctor, requires 10 years of service in that field to the American people. Not free service or government service, but a grantee they will use their new knowledge or skills to benefit the country before returning to their own.

Immigration from conflict zones, if they are from a country we are directly in conflict with. They are denied until significant reason is given (heavily vetted, worked with us, proven trust, etc) otherwise not until 5 years of post conflict. Conflict zones (i.e. Syrian refugees) not without significant reason given (extreme humanitarian reasons, asylum, etc). Otherwise heavily intensive vetting, restrictive and temporary immigration, with supervision the equivalent of standard probation used in our justice system. Know where they are, what they are doing, drug test, etc. Give people a chance, but not blindly. The firstand foremost importance should be the safety of the American people, over the immigration from war torn countries.

Just my thoughts and opinions, feel free to state your own and pick mine apart.
 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,493
I think some of your points are great @Diamondback 2/2.

Some questions about parts though. How do change birthright citizenship? Again I don't think a constitutional amendment is likely.

Enforcing many of these actions would lead to a much larger and active government. All these programs would cost a great deal of money. With a promise by Trump to reduce taxes, where does the money come from? i understand there are many programs that can be cut, but this would be a significant increase in local, state and federal law enforcement expense, as well as an additional level of government involvement in personal livelihood.

Why would there need to be a special tax imposed on the families of immigrant workers for education outside of property tax, sales tax, and other local taxes that currently fund schools? I think that would face issues with legality, specifically if the people are here legally under a new system.


As to the government grants to those on student visas , I just straight disagree. Contributions to science and technology advance human progress regardless of borders. In my wife's Ph.D cohort there were many foreign students, who made great contributions to science while here on visas, while studying under NSF, or NIH grants. They don't just take those contributions home with them, they publish their findings, and contribute to the human knowledge base.

I am in total agreement on deporting those who have been convicted of a crime. There is no need to pay for incarceration of people who shouldn't be here in the first place. I do think that while in the criminal justice system they should receive all other protections granted under the constitution.
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,836
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
I think some of your points are great @Diamondback 2/2.

Some questions about parts though. How do change birthright citizenship? Again I don't think a constitutional amendment is likely.

Obviously in order to do so would require a constitutional amendment. I think it could be done with regard to the anchor-baby deal, obviously with a grandfathering clause for everyone pre-ammendment. But again these are just my thoughts, how doable they actually are is imaginary at best. Don't know unless you try kinda deal.

Enforcing many of these actions would lead to a much larger and active government. All these programs would cost a great deal of money.

I agree, but I also think something needs to be done, as the system is broken. Obviously I would seek some sort of a system where the immigrants are paying for the system, or at least a significant portion. Obviously that could exclude many people, but at this point, I believe immigration should be as a benefit to the nation vs a benefit to the immigrant.

With a promise by Trump to reduce taxes, where does the money come from?

I'm not looking at Trump's promises, as I stated earlier. I'm looking at what a good reform may look like vs what the politics of the day are.

I understand there are many programs that can be cut, but this would be a significant increase in local, state and federal law enforcement expense, as well as an additional level of government involvement in personal livelihood.

I do not disagree, but I think we need to track people better, we need to be able to measure cost vs return and we need to be able to adjust according. We obviously can't go broke over immigration, but we also can't have a free for all either. Obviously would try things and figure out what is effective and what is not and than revise from there.

Why would there need to be a special tax imposed on the families of immigrant workers for education outside of property tax, sales tax, and other local taxes that currently fund schools?

Migrant workers generally do not pay any property taxes or local taxes (outside of consumer taxes). If the county/state/school district is taxing a farm based on a normal median family based on census, but has an influx during harvest season, someone needs to pay for it. I think that cost should fall to the people who increase the resource cost. Either the migrant family or the farmer, or jointly.

I think that would face issues with legality, specifically if the people are here legally under a new system.

Under current laws yes, but the whole reason for reform is to fix the problem.

As to the government grants to those on student visas , I just straight disagree. Contributions to science and technology advance human progress regardless of borders. In my wife's Ph.D cohort there were many foreign students, who made great contributions to science while here on visas, while studying under NSF, or NIH grants. They don't just take those contributions home with them, they publish their findings, and contribute to the human knowledge base.

I see your point, however, I also forsee schools abusing these programs. If there is a way to insure the grants go to idividuals who contribute to our betterment I am all for it, but that seems a little harder to maintain oversight. There needs to be an measurable accounting of those grants. A cost to benefit system.

I am in total agreement on deporting those who have been convicted of a crime. There is no need to pay for incarceration of people who shouldn't be here in the first place. I do think that while in the criminal justice system they should receive all other protections granted under the constitution.

Replied in red in your post.

I also agree on wasting tax dollars on criminals, although there obviously needs to be a punishment for crimes committed. We're not going to let a murder walk back across the border. I would say punishment for those type of convictions should fall under the penal system they were committed. Example, if a state offense is committed, allow the state to set the laws and how they will enforce them with regards to immigrants. Some states may say x number of years than deport, some may require full sentences, some may just say get them the hell out of here, obviously depending on the severity of the crime. But I agree, outside of what is humane, don't waste money and get rid of them asap.

Good point's!
 

CDG

Mittens
Verified Military
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
6,939
Location
Off safe. One away.
SSMP
SOF Mentor
I think this is a great conversation to have, and I wish I could contribute something more substantial to keep it going, but I agree with everything that has been said. I really like your ideas, @Diamondback 2/2, and my initial concerns after reading the OP were addressed by @TLDR20 already. I think the disconnect will be between what *should* be done and what *can* be done. However, some change is better than no change, and an imperfect plan executed now is better than a perfect plan that never gets off the ground. I would like to see the Trump Administration begin addressing realistic goals and timelines for immigration issues. If we can only afford one, my vote goes to the criminal class of the illegal immigrant. We need to get them out, and keep them out.
 

Ooh-Rah

Semper-Fi
Verified Military
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
10,977
So where do the so-called Sanctuary Cities fall into this?

NY, LA, Seattle, Minneapolis, and I believe now Chicago mayors have come out saying that will not help the Feds deport illegals unless they commit a crime.

Umm....isn't it a crime to be in the country illegally? I get that it is not that simple, but it seems like a bit of a Catch-22 to me. Law enforcement does not want to go after illegals because they think it will keep them from talking to the police- which will cause the police to solve less crimes. BUT....if the illegals were not here...my head is starting to spin.

My initial instinct has been to support the folks who say "keep us out of it", but I did not even know these Sanctuary Cities existed until a few weeks ago, so I could likely be pursuaded to see another point-of-view.

To add - Trump has threatened to take federal funding away for those cities who won't play along. I FUCKING hate that - they did it with seat belts, drinking age, and .08 alcohol limit. Now this? that particular tactic continues to errode "states' rights" and takes us further away from the Republic we are supposed to be.
 

Kraut783

SOF Support
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
3,213
Location
Dallas Metro Area
"Umm....isn't it a crime to be in the country illegally? I get that it is not that simple, but it seems like a bit of a Catch-22 to me. Law enforcement does not want to go after illegals because they think it will keep them from talking to the police- which will cause the police to solve less crimes. BUT....if the illegals were not here...my head is starting to spin."

We local/State don't enforce federal immigration law. But, once in custody for a crime, if status is questioned during booking....we just call the ICE number that is staffed 24/7 and a detainer is placed on them, happens 24/7/365. While many cities might be "Sanctuary cities" most counties are not and usually book the cities felony suspects....
 

Ooh-Rah

Semper-Fi
Verified Military
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
10,977
we just call the ICE number that is staffed 24/7 and a detainer is placed on them, happens 24/7/365.

My understanding is that the Sanctuary Cities will not call ICE - never a problem for the current administration but looks like it could become a problem under the new.
 

0699

Verified Military
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
3,549
Location
NoVa
To add - Trump has threatened to take federal funding away for those cities who won't play along. I FUCKING hate that - they did it with seat belts, drinking age, and .08 alcohol limit. Now this? that particular tactic continues to errode "states' rights" and takes us further away from the Republic we are supposed to be.
As long as the states are nursing from the federal teat, the idea that they can make independent decisions is extremely eroded. The states have chosen to take federal money for programs that are inherently the responsibility of the individual states, and have done so because it allows them to keep state taxes low. But just like the child that lives under their parents roof, as long as the parent/fed is paying the bills, they will fully expect to have a say in how the child/state lives their life.

If the states ever want to be serious about their "independence" from the federal government, the first thing they need to do is quit taking federal money. If the city of Chicago ever decides to stop taking federal money, I think they would be on higher moral ground when they tell it to fuck off.
 

AWP

Formerly Known as Freefalling
SOF Support
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
16,014
Location
Not Afghanistan
As long as the states are nursing from the federal teat, the idea that they can make independent decisions is extremely eroded. The states have chosen to take federal money for programs that are inherently the responsibility of the individual states, and have done so because it allows them to keep state taxes low. But just like the child that lives under their parents roof, as long as the parent/fed is paying the bills, they will fully expect to have a say in how the child/state lives their life.

If the states ever want to be serious about their "independence" from the federal government, the first thing they need to do is quit taking federal money. If the city of Chicago ever decides to stop taking federal money, I think they would be on higher moral ground when they tell it to fuck off.

It reminds me of how we'll give a country hundred of millions/ billions in foreign aid, and then the recipient nation tells us to bugger off where their country is concerned.

Ultimately, if you play pussy you're going to get fucked.
 

Kraut783

SOF Support
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
3,213
Location
Dallas Metro Area
My understanding is that the Sanctuary Cities will not call ICE - never a problem for the current administration but looks like it could become a problem under the new.

True, but once transferred to the county....county will call ICE. For example...Austin, TX is a sanctuary city, but Travis county will hold the felony suspects...and call ICE for a immigration hold. This is not true for everywhere, merely an example.
 

Totentanz

Civil Affairs
Verified SOF
Joined
Dec 22, 2006
Messages
1,619
It reminds me of how we'll give a country hundred of millions/ billions in foreign aid, and then the recipient nation tells us to bugger off where their country is concerned.

You mean like our favorite "ally" that ends in -stan?

I'm down with having a path to being here legally. A relatively easy, employer-supported 12-month migrant work visa would be fine by me. If they want to jump the line to citizenship ahead of those who've put in the work, the time, the money, they can FOAD.
 

Grunt

Verified Military
Joined
Oct 14, 2010
Messages
4,905
It reminds me of how we'll give a country hundred of millions/ billions in foreign aid, and then the recipient nation tells us to bugger off where their country is concerned.

Ultimately, if you play pussy you're going to get fucked.

That's one of the main reasons why I am becoming more of an isolationist the older I get. I am getting more and more, "What can you do for me?"

You take my money, you answer when I call and do what I ask!
 

0699

Verified Military
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
3,549
Location
NoVa
I think if you stop federal funding to cities, inhabitants of those cities should pay a reduced rate of income tax.
If we stopped all federal funds going to the states and cities, we could reduce the income tax for everyone. The states and cities should quit suckling on the federal teat, raise those funds they need to operate, and quit using federal monies to keep their taxes low.
 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,493
If we stopped all federal funds going to the states and cities, we could reduce the income tax for everyone. The states and cities should quit suckling on the federal teat, raise those funds they need to operate, and quit using federal monies to keep their taxes low.

Right.

Then we could effectively be a republic of city states.
 

0699

Verified Military
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
3,549
Location
NoVa
Right.

Then we could effectively be a republic of city states.
How so?

The states and cities complain when the federal government expects them to enforce federal law, but they happily stick their hand out for federal money. If the federal government didn't hold the power of the purse over the cities and states, the local governments would be in a much more legitimate ethical position when they tell the Fed that they aren't going to enforce federal law.

The federal government shouldn't be in the wealth distribution business, especially when they collect money from the people, then give it to the local governments. The Fed should only be collecting money for and spending money on those things that are inherent functions of a national government (defense, foreign policy, monetary policy, interstate commerce ala the interstate highway system, etc) and the local governments should be collecting taxes for and spending money on local items such as welfare, local infrastructure, schools, local law enforcement, etc.
 

Ooh-Rah

Semper-Fi
Verified Military
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
10,977
I think when it comes to the topic of immigration, former President Bill Clinton really says it best.

 

TLDR20

Verified SOF
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,493
How so?

The states and cities complain when the federal government expects them to enforce federal law, but they happily stick their hand out for federal money. If the federal government didn't hold the power of the purse over the cities and states, the local governments would be in a much more legitimate ethical position when they tell the Fed that they aren't going to enforce federal law.

The federal government shouldn't be in the wealth distribution business, especially when they collect money from the people, then give it to the local governments. The Fed should only be collecting money for and spending money on those things that are inherent functions of a national government (defense, foreign policy, monetary policy, interstate commerce ala the interstate highway system, etc) and the local governments should be collecting taxes for and spending money on local items such as welfare, local infrastructure, schools, local law enforcement, etc.

I was basically agreeing with you.

I just see cities being able to in some cases wield much more power than states. In many states the major cities population is much higher than the rest of the population, and as the cities go so do the states.
 
Last edited:
Top