There is a MAJOR Caveat to your first line here. . . it is a lie at worse. .. incomplete at best These are jobs that AMERICANS DO NOT WANT TO DO *AT THAT PRICE* If these jobs paid a decent wage then Americans would do them The question is . .. what is a Decent Wage? Illegal Immigration is a way to get around the laws of SUPPLY AND DEMAND and break UNIONS and EMPLOYEE POWER 100 Americans searching to fill 200 Jobs = The Employees making more money for the job 100 Americans + 100 Immigrants to fill 200 Jobs = less money for the job but maybe decent 100 Americans + 1000 Immigrants to fill 200 Jobs = Far Less money for the job Illegal Immigrants are artificially increase the supply of workers for the demand of those jobs In Economic Terms Which is why you have to make it MORE EXPENSIVE ON COMPANIES TO HIRE ILLEGALS THAN TO HIRE AMERICANS then the illegal problem will just go away Rocket River
Here is the problem . . .. not just with Immigration but in America in general We make it HARD TO BECOME AND REMAIN LEGAL We create situations that make people illegal or do illegal things then blame them for doing it Because we have FOR PROFIT prisoners WITH A PRISON QUOTA we *have to* make criminals It is difficult to blame someone for being an illegal immigrant when we make it d*mn near impossible to navigate an overly convoluted and confusing process to become legal and that confusion and difficult is a Feature not a bug I think we INTENTIONALLY make if hard because THE RIGHT people benefit from the mess Like our Tax Code .. . overly complicated so the rich and access loopholes that are closed to the poor (A whole sub-industry of accountants that do nothing but work those loopholes) Capitalism requires unlimited growth If things are FIXED that is contraction and very Un-Capitalistic Immigration is a Market - we have little interest in shrinking - How many people lose jobs and how much money lost if this was fixed? Rocket River
This is the conundrum. I do not think deep down many in charge want to fine the employers because that would create a scenario that the prices of increased wages will get passed on to the consumer. So many think about "My economic pain" as opposed to the fact that these people are basically indentured servants. Thus, my comment about this being such a sticky wicket.
The "Not wanting to fine the Employers" IS the modern equivalent of the Slave Owners getting reparations after the Civil War (IT HAPPENED) meanwhile we don't want to help the Illegal Immigrant . . .we want to punish and hurt them (not unlike Slaves after the Civil War) The - we don't want to raises prices - is similar to the -we give them tax cuts to create jobs- argument It's a Fallacy If they raise prices too much the Market will tell them OH NO YOU WON'T There is only so much the Market can bear The problem is we don't want to AFFECT *THEIR* PROFITS F*ck the consumer F*ck the worker. . . .DON'T F*CK WITH PROFITS!! We are very Ferengi that way Rocket River
You realize you are allowed to wear a police officer costume, right? Impersonating an officer requires more than wearing a jacket or hat. It requires actually representing that you are a police officer (same for ICE agent, I would assume). If he tried to arrest an illegal immigrant and take them to an ICE holding facility, then he could be charged with impersonating an ICE agent. Just wearing the jacket and going to Home Depot? Not so much. You should let them know they are doing it wrong if that is what they want.
With Trump there are two tiers of justice, and the bosses illegally hiring undocumented workers will always get the better deal. Allowing the guy on top to take advantage of workers and stripping worker rights, benefits, protections, or stifling their ability to seek recourse is just Trump being Trump. Whistleblowers are his enemy. Media is his enemy. He wants to project a fake image. You see what is most important to him every time he does something else to keep the workers under the reign of their masters.
It used to be a realistic program that was turned into a joke. The way asylum is supposed to work is that people that cannot reasonably live in their home country flee to the nearest safe country and request asylum. It is then quickly determined if their fears are warranted, and if so they can be granted asylum. Modernly, people immigrating for economic reasons are being told to claim asylum if they are caught immigrating illegally and then their asylum claims are being decided years later. Almost all of the asylum claims are false, and most of the "asylum seekers" have passed through multiple countries where the danger they allegedly are fleeing doesn't exist.
I believe the system is being taking advantage of / corrupted, but I'm confused on how we can claim something is illegal when on paper it's not, and that can't be interpreted until the claim is reviewed. Considering every asylum case false and doing mass removal without a fair judicial review seems like the Government is the one breaking its own laws.
You notice how they all rallied around cartel members when they get deported? That’s because they don’t want their drug dealers deported supply and demand Don’t want to deport the supply Cause they want their drugs breh @basso @Salvy @CrixusTheUndefeatedGaul
It is still illegal to cross the border without going through a point of entry without the permission of the United States. Claiming asylum essentially pauses that illegality until your asylum claim can be determined, but there are also rules associated with that. There are specific laws related to claims for asylum. 8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Judicial review is specifically rejected in many of the situations covered. These are determinations made by the executive branch.
Unfortunately for many, it is their only realistic option. Overstay visas, have kids, then apply for legal status once they are old enough to sponsor them.
That's sounds like a legal contradiction, if it's legal to claim asylum and be here legally after illegally crossing the border, then it doesn't seem the border crossing being illegal has much of any merit in the situation. If we changed the laws to exclude asylum for illegal entries it would make a lot more sense. It seems like people who don't fall under those exceptions are still being deported without judicial review, no?
Yes, clearly we should do that. There was no reason to allow people entering illegally to claim asylum, it was a big mistake. I couldn't tell you, I don't know any examples. The standard asylum claim doesn't require judicial review either, just an immigration officer, so I am not sure that it matters.
