My plan would start with 1) Legalize mar1juana , this would do a lot to help limit the drug violence that is a destabilizing factor in many of the countries south of our border. Cartel violence and the inability for these countries to keep their own house in order is a huge problem and plays into people abandoning their homes to try and come here 2) Shift military spending and resources away from the middle east and use them to enforce our southern border and come up with a plan to humanely treat and process these refugees/ immigrants. The more resource we dedicate , the better job we can do both limiting illegal entry into the country AND the more people we have to dealing with how to process the people that have made it in We need to form a much stronger relationship with allies in our own hemisphere . 3) im in favor for a path to citizenship ( over a significant number of years) if you entered illegally some time ago. Its not right to uproot families and deny that most of these immigrants have done nothing but work hard and provide value to the community. Sure, they entered illegally, but if our legal system functioned efficiently maybe people would not have felt like they had to resort to that... like i said , its the situation in their home countries that creates this pressure to come here
Start arresting and holding company officials responsible when hiring illegal immigrants. I have seen no further news on the chicken processing plant management that ICE raided in August
I think that enforcement would be costly , business will find a way to pay under the table , and monitoring is gonna require a lot of personnel
Sure...but they don’t have to monitor anything when they arrest substantial numbers of illegals. So far, there has been no punishment or indictments against the guys that hired all of those illegals at the chicken plants. There is no disincentive to hire. Huge fines and substantial jail time, should defer other potential employers.
Most mar1juana in the US is probably homegrown. At least a higher percentage than what you may think. Cocaine is the drug that would need to be legalized. That and drugs like meth and opioids.
They should legalize it all. There are active cocaine stores in houston now and the houston narcotics and dea office on 610 loop by the galleria dont care.
I grew up in South Texas, stepmom is from Mexico, and I personally know people from Mexico dealing with legal issues due to overstaying visas, so my comments are largely from an anecdotal point of view. Also, I've been an immigrant in other countries where I wasn't always legal, and always due to being on the wrong side of bureaucracy rather than being a dead beat/freeloader/etc. But in short, I'd prefer enforcement of immigration law focused on deporting criminals, preventing the overburdening of public resources, and treating people humanely rather than providing political theater for either the "Build The Wall" crowd or the virtue signalers that advocate open borders and dismantling all immigration enforcement.. The wall: concern is cost, imminent domain for land owners, and environmental impact on animals, especially endangered or protected ones like large cats, etc. Increased enforcement seems reasonable -- hiring more Border Patrol agents who are Spanish speakers and trained to deal with the situations they encounters seems like a better use of taxpayer money than anything else. There might be areas that need taller or better fences, but building a wall across a land border that long always seemed more than a bit much and more than a bit political theater. Health care: Other countries (Germany in particular comes to mind) have strict rules about having medical insurance as a condition to even get a residency visa. It's illegal to live there without paying for private insurance to avoid burdening the public system and I think any discussion of a Medicare for all or public healthcare system should have a provision like that. I agree with thumbs on going after businesses who exploit desperate undocumented workers for cheap labor, and I think doing so is a better use of resources than raiding apartment buildings in Spanish-speaking neighborhoods. Otherwise, I don't think it's reasonable to require that others be responsible for policing immigration status if it doesn't require a social security number. It's already a requirement to ask for a ss#/visa status as an employer, but I don't see why I should demand to see the papers of the crew building my roof or xeroscaping my garden or cleaning my house or detailing my car. In fact, in the case of someone I know who is dealing with being caught overstaying his visa, the court is asking for character references from customers of his gardening business in order to be allowed to stay. Considering that having a social security number is required for a job or to receive benefits and given to citizens and legal residents, the genie, so to speak is already out of the bottle. It's already a de facto national ID. Making the social security card a photo ID and requiring it to vote, get a driver's license, or utilize some other government-administered public resource is not unreasonable to me. But I don't want people avoiding health care providers -- it's not good for public health, especially in encouraging the spread of untreated communicable diseases. Besides which, refusing emergency treatment someone that has a heart attack in the middle of the street or a victim of a violent crime does not exactly square well with the Hippocratic oath. Should EMS demand to see everyone's proof of immigration status before administering CPR? You can treat them, then charge them, then fine and deport them for not having health insurance then bar them from re-entry if it's not settled (like Germany does). I also don't want to discourage anyone from reporting crimes to the police. In my dealing with local police as an HOA board member in the barrio, I've been told repeatedly that most crimes in Texas cities, especially property crimes, and especially during the day, are witnessed by day laborers. Many of them don't have legal visas, and until now, were cooperative with police, and proactive in reporting, confident that normal law enforcement was separate from immigration enforcement. Outside of sanctuary cities, they are afraid to, and it has made life harder for law enforcement, who already have too much to do with limited resources. That's why I understand the argument for not wanting local law enforcement to enforce immigration law. The person previously mentioned was pulled over in Bastrop County for a busted tail light and was turned over to ICE. His wife is here on a legal visa, and his daughter and son were born here, he supports them with a landscaping business with regular customers, legally owns a double-wide in Cedar Creek he paid cash for and pays the taxes on, but was held for weeks before being released with a punitive bail despite not having a criminal record in 15 years here and clearly not being a flight risk to appear in court. The federal government has no interest in deporting people like this -- but they soak for them a lot in fines and it's a boon for scummy immigration lawyers, who probably have every reason to re-elect Trump. If anyone should be looking to collect, I'd prefer it be the IRS for unreported revenue and the Social Security Administration for those not paying into the security net when they were able, and will be a burden to society if they become disabled or when they age and are no longer able to work. I'd prefer ICE work with organizations like that rather than local sheriffs departments and police. Democrats, traditionally concerned with preserving the social net and union jobs, were the ones in American political life traditionally against immigration, and it was Republicans, who were fans of cheap labor and not keen on the welfare state who were soft on it, so it's strange to be old enough to see that change. As as it regards access to public schools, I leave this:
Here is a great thread (16 tweets) by a former DHS and CBP official on trump's latest temper tantrum...
Why can’t there be middle ground? Canada has a strict immigration policy yet they have provisions for refugees. The US can have a merit based system that can include certain amount of refugees. I honestly think refugees should apply at embassies at their own country instead at the point of entry.
Trump chief of staff says US ‘desperately’ needs more immigrants Mick Mulvaney comments mark contrast to hardline stance adopted by number of White House officials https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...taff-mick-mulvaney-oxford-union-a9350611.html
Translation: US Desperately Needs More White People That Have Money And Their Females Must Be Attractive........ Hispanics and Blacks Need Not Apply.
Do Americans really see illegal immigration as being that important of a problem anyway? https://www.changeresearch.com/post/states-of-play-battleground-wave-8 And then this latest Gallup survey results, showing all Americans attitudes towards immigration... https://news.gallup.com/poll/313106...utton&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sharing
