Immigration

[supesalemgr2]

My reporting what a leftist democrat politician said is hardly endorsing the utterance. My post about how the Hispanic community has assimilated in Hendersonville was obviously missed (or possibly purposely ignored). I totally support LEGAL immigration and not overly concerned with those here abiding by our laws.

[Vrede too]

Well, I guess you'll just have to write my comment off as yet another point allegedly going over my head. I had no idea you were "standing up for the Hispanic community" by noting that a Democratic mayor said something unflattering to Hispanics.....but it does make me suspicious of your stated motive of "standing up for the Hispanic community" in light of your complete silence when trump and other right wing nuts whine about how bad all these immigrants are and how they're all criminals or mental asylum escapees.....trump has been doing this for almost ten years now. Funny how I never noticed you standing up for them. Even when they're picked up off the street and flown to a foreign country without due process or even without being charged with a crime. I guess you were "standing up" along with all those other invisible guys.

It's easier for xenophobes and bigots to stomp minorities while "standing up"'.

[O Really]

Immigration laws are a rat's nest of paronoia, much resulting from 9/11. It's interesting, though, that repugs are quite willing to demand changes in other laws, they just sit back and yell "ILLEGAL" at brown people without also demanding the laws be made more reasonable and workable for everyone. It would be nice for it to be reasonably straightforward for an immigrant to follow the law, and equally straightforward to refuse or remove those who have an actual criminal record.

I guess it's just easier to scream "ILLEGAL" and talk about Dems' "open borders" than it is to learn what the law actually is and vote for improvement.

[Vrede too]

Immigration laws are a rat's nest of paronoia, much resulting from 9/11. It's interesting, though, that repugs are quite willing to demand changes in other laws, they just sit back and yell "ILLEGAL" at brown people without also demanding the laws be made more reasonable and workable for everyone. It would be nice for it to be reasonably straightforward for an immigrant to follow the law, and equally straightforward to refuse or remove those who have an actual criminal record.

I guess it's just easier to scream "ILLEGAL" and talk about Dems' "open borders" than it is to learn what the law actually is and vote for improvement.

Not just easier. Once again, a con-fest of blaming outsiders without once mentioning our own role in the situation.

Corporate and our own consumers' interests are served more than anyone's by having a large pool of frightened workers willing to work for submarket pay. RW politicians, not left, are most benefited by having a perpetual "problem" to stir up fearmongering and hatred among their minions like SoupySales. With this double bonus, it's no surprise that no action has been taken despite years of hand-wringing.

If we really want change, start talking about what we Americans are doing, rather than incessantly whining about the universally poor, mostly decent, hard-working folks just trying to better themselves and their families.

[O Really]

I never did any immigration work per se, but in my labor practice I did a lot of work for various agriculture clients - farmers, nursery growers, landscapers, etc. who use primarily immigrant labor. These people generally didn't pay below market, and filed their I-9's like they were required to do. But getting a fake SS card and immigration docs isn't difficult, and employers have no legal obligation to do additional verification of the documents presented. So a lot of improperly documented people got through. But consider also that these people are subject to tax deductions, including Social Security and Medicare, that they will never receive any benefit from. So yeah, the system is set up for few if any meaningful penalties on the employers as long as they go through the motions and give lip service to verification, and all the enforcement effort on to the workers.

Even Reagan - yes, that Reagan - included a provision in his 1986 IRCA act that granted lawful permanent residency to roughly 3 million undocumented immigrants who could prove continuous residence in the U.S. since January 1, 1982 (about 4 years), or qualified as Special Agricultural Workers (SAW). Reinstituting such a provision could take care of a lot of the people who have lived here for years, now being hauled off by ICE to parts unknown. It would be helpful to have a "compliance period" of at least a year or so, during which anybody eligible for residency had to file some documents, jump some hoops and be lawfully recognized or else they'd go back to being ILLEGAL and ICE gestapo could release their hounds and drag them in. However, once dragged in, they still should get a court hearing during which a LEGAL decision could be made on what to do with them.

Naaa, that wouldn't help get rid of brown people, though.

[Vrede too]

It's tricky asking migrants to register for whatever tolerance is currently being offered. Dreamers did that and now they're being swept up by the jackboots.

[O Really]

It's tricky asking migrants to register for whatever tolerance is currently being offered. Dreamers did that and now they're being swept up by the jackboots.

Well, there's obviously not gonna be any change in law or practice without a change of administration and Congress. But yeah, it'll take a while for any trust to occur. Firing the jackboots and releasing the falsely/ILLEGALLY incarcerated would help, though.

[supesalemgr2]

Immigration laws are a rat's nest of paronoia, much resulting from 9/11. It's interesting, though, that repugs are quite willing to demand changes in other laws, they just sit back and yell "ILLEGAL" at brown people without also demanding the laws be made more reasonable and workable for everyone. It would be nice for it to be reasonably straightforward for an immigrant to follow the law, and equally straightforward to refuse or remove those who have an actual criminal record.

I guess it's just easier to scream "ILLEGAL" and talk about Dems' "open borders" than it is to learn what the law actually is and vote for improvement.

"Illegal" is all we folks have until new laws are enacted. I do not disagree cleaning up our immigration laws is needed. The question is will any new laws solve the problem.

And, the term illegal is a description, not racist.

[neoplacebo]

Immigration laws are a rat's nest of paronoia, much resulting from 9/11. It's interesting, though, that repugs are quite willing to demand changes in other laws, they just sit back and yell "ILLEGAL" at brown people without also demanding the laws be made more reasonable and workable for everyone. It would be nice for it to be reasonably straightforward for an immigrant to follow the law, and equally straightforward to refuse or remove those who have an actual criminal record.

I guess it's just easier to scream "ILLEGAL" and talk about Dems' "open borders" than it is to learn what the law actually is and vote for improvement.

"Illegal" is all we folks have until new laws are enacted. I do not disagree cleaning up our immigration laws is needed. The question is will any new laws solve the problem.

And, the term illegal is a description, not racist.

A "description?" I would more accurately call it a lie, just like the majority of what comes out of trump's mouth is a lie. And for some reason I've so far not been able to understand, millions of low watters actually believe such lies.

See if you can "describe" to me what makes a person "illegal" if they're appearing in immigration court as they've been told to do but when they do appear in court they're arrested and taken away by immigration agents. Or "describe" to me how an immigrant living in MD for years and holding a non deportation order from a judge for about six years can be arrested and deported despite the order from the judge. Or how a different judge in this same matter ordered the deportation planes to return to the US but they delivered their human cargo to a foreign prison anyway.

[O Really]

"Illegal" may not be racist, if one ignores that the vast majority of the people the term is used for are brown, but it is intentionally derogatory. There's a difference in doing something illegal and being "illegal." People who commit other crimes are not called "illegals." If they're covicted, they're "criminals." Until then, they're "suspects," "accused," or "defendant." It's only the brown people who didn't get all their paperwork stamped that are branded "ILLEGALS."

[supesalemgr2]

"Illegal" may not be racist, if one ignores that the vast majority of the people the term is used for are brown, but it is intentionally derogatory. There's a difference in doing something illegal and being "illegal." People who commit other crimes are not called "illegals." If they're covicted, they're "criminals." Until then, they're "suspects," "accused," or "defendant." It's only the brown people who didn't get all their paperwork stamped that are branded "ILLEGALS."

" that the vast majority of the people the term is used for are brown"

So what? Most who come here are from countries whose majority population is broen. Has nothing to do with the "racist" term.

[Vrede too]

Again,

Bigots always believe that they're merely realists.

A "description?" I would more accurately call it a lie, just like the majority of what comes out of trump's mouth is a lie. And for some reason I've so far not been able to understand, millions of low watters actually believe such lies.

See if you can "describe" to me what makes a person "illegal" if they're appearing in immigration court as they've been told to do but when they do appear in court they're arrested and taken away by immigration agents. Or "describe" to me how an immigrant living in MD for years and holding a non deportation order from a judge for about six years can be arrested and deported despite the order from the judge. Or how a different judge in this same matter ordered the deportation planes to return to the US but they delivered their human cargo to a foreign prison anyway.

"Illegal" may not be racist, if one ignores that the vast majority of the people the term is used for are brown, but it is intentionally derogatory. There's a difference in doing something illegal and being "illegal." People who commit other crimes are not called "illegals." If they're convicted, they're "criminals." Until then, they're "suspects," "accused," or "defendant." It's only the brown people who didn't get all their paperwork stamped that are branded "ILLEGALS."

Y'all should know better than to use facts, grammar and logic on racist MAGAts. It's unfair and should be made ILLEGAL. Maybe it soon will be.

[O Really]

No other country similar to the US (e.g. Canada, UK, Australia) brands their undocumented migrants as "illegal people." In fact, a lot of the undocumented people in the US called "ILLEGALS" by many actually aren't doing anything illegal if they're in the asylum process. And those account for most of the people who sneak in, but then who turn themselves in to border control.

What's wrong with "unauthorized"? Accurate, non-judgemental, applies to all people for all reasons, and still allows the 4 guys previously convicted of murder or general malevolence to be summarily deported while giving documentation to the thousand farm workers, landscapers, drywallers, and stone masons.

[O Really]

Several years ago (2016 to be exact) I looked into what hoops I might have to jump to get British citizenship compliments of my mum. Bottom line was that I probably could, but the amount of time gone by and the documentation I could probably never find made it highly impractical. Plus, I don't know exactly how my mum's citizenship came about. She came over to attend university and stayed for the war. Anyway, I wondered what the rules were back then, and found this, turning out that racial discrimination in US immigration isn't a new thing, just maybe re-newed:

In 1940, becoming a U.S. citizen through naturalization was largely restricted to white persons, people of African descent, and Native Americans, requiring residency, good moral character, English literacy, and knowledge of U.S. principles, with specific exceptions for military service members' children and special provisions for Filipinos; however, racial barriers began to fall with the 1943 repeal of Chinese Exclusion and the 1946 eligibility for Asian Indians and Filipinos, with the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act ending racial restrictions entirely.

[supesalemgr2]

Several years ago (2016 to be exact) I looked into what hoops I might have to jump to get British citizenship compliments of my mum. Bottom line was that I probably could, but the amount of time gone by and the documentation I could probably never find made it highly impractical. Plus, I don't know exactly how my mum's citizenship came about. She came over to attend university and stayed for the war. Anyway, I wondered what the rules were back then, and found this, turning out that racial discrimination in US immigration isn't a new thing, just maybe re-newed:

In 1940, becoming a U.S. citizen through naturalization was largely restricted to white persons, people of African descent, and Native Americans, requiring residency, good moral character, English literacy, and knowledge of U.S. principles, with specific exceptions for military service members' children and special provisions for Filipinos; however, racial barriers began to fall with the 1943 repeal of Chinese Exclusion and the 1946 eligibility for Asian Indians and Filipinos, with the 1952 McCarran-Walter Act ending racial restrictions entirely.

Since the 50's and 60's there has many charters, etc; changed because of racial and other exclusions. I remember I was on the board of governors of the club I belonged in Jackson, MS. We voluntarily changed our membership qualifications which excluded race or gender in the 80's. It was proper and sensible. The biggest benefit was it allowed widows to become full fledged voting stockholders in the club. We eventually had a couple of Black members as existing members recruited some folks.

[O Really]

I guess it's a credit to your club's progressive attitude that they could find a couple of Black people in a town with 45 or so percent white in the 80's

But in any case it's a lot more forgivable for a private club to discriminate than for it to be the official law of the land.

[supesalemgr2]

I guess it's a credit to your club's progressive attitude that they could find a couple of Black people in a town with 45 or so percent white in the 80's

But in any case it's a lot more forgivable for a private club to discriminate than for it to be the official law of the land.

It was not from a lack of effort. In fact, the private school my son went offered a scholarship to a good student from an inner city school. It took 2-3 years before any parents expressed any interest.

Also, there are few really "private" clubs. Most country clubs offer outside groups meeting, wedding events, etc; to non-members. This basically removes that club from "private".

[Vrede too]

I guess it's a credit to your club's progressive attitude that they could find a couple of Black people in a town with 45 or so percent white in the 80's

But in any case it's a lot more forgivable for a private club to discriminate than for it to be the official law of the land.

"45 or so percent white"? Where?

80's? 80's to admit their tokens?! So they were still racist in the 1970s, as late as 16 years after the CRA? Yuck, the South is the only region where someone would brag about that.

[O Really]

I guess it's a credit to your club's progressive attitude that they could find a couple of Black people in a town with 45 or so percent white in the 80's

But in any case it's a lot more forgivable for a private club to discriminate than for it to be the official law of the land.

"45 or so percent white"? Where?

80's? 80's to admit their tokens?! So they were still racist in the 1970s, as late as 16 years after the CRA? Yuck, the South is the only region where someone would brag about that.

Well, remember the Augusta (Master's) Club didn't allow any Black members until 1990. Not defending it, but I'm just saying there is at least an argument for discrimination in a private club, but none for the government.

According to a very cursory search, White population percentage started going down in Jackson in the 70's into 80's (white flight), and by the mid-80's White share of the population was about 43%. However, I can see Supes' point - why would hardly any Black person want to be in such a club with the history of racism in the area? Any Black person joining would be likely to be shunned by the Black community, and would at the least know that he's probably a token, not a ground-breaker.

[Vrede too]

Ah, Jackson. Thanks.

Legal and moral are two different things.