It's 2018. Children are being separated from their parents and kept in cages[1]. It's really important to notice that the pictures in this article are not from reporters, leaks or anything of the sort. They were released by Customs and Border Protection and, no doubt, make things look better than they were.
What has changed since Trump's first term? Yes, there is now a stronger sensitivity to separating children from their parents, among the public at least. One solution is to simply deport child citizens along with non-citizen parents and claim it was by choice.
What solutions are we not seeing in the media though? How many photos are being published about conditions in ICE facilities, Guantanamo bay, etc.? What's going on that we just don't know about this time? If some judge ordered the release of photos of current conditions in ICE facilities, they'd be ignored or even charged with some made-up crime.
I see a lot of people here trying to reason this away, but it's going to be worse than last time and, eventually, the truth will get out. I know it's tough to care about this while Trump is simultaneously tanking the stock market, waging trade wars, threatening multiple countries with invasion or annexation, etc.. That is by design. Even Americans who cannot spare any sympathy for immigrants need to make the time to care about how their government is treating American children.
It's 2000, Bill Clinton is about to wrap up his second term and has deported more people in that term than any president ever at nearly 7,000,000 deportations. Trump barely had 2,000,000 deportations in his first term. Trump's first term was the lowest level of deportations for any administration since Carter. Obama, Reagan, Both Bushes, Clinton and Biden all deported more people every term of their administrations.
This has been going on for a long time. I doubt Trump will beat Clinton's 2nd term. I'd be willing to bet on it if anyone wants to take the other side.
There is so much lack of context in all these discussions. The 'Maryland Man' that everyone is extremely concerned about was first deported by Obama admin in 2009. Remigration is an ugly business, but it has to happen if you want to live in a sovereign nation under the rule of law.
Saying "there is no such thing as a perfect process" when discussing the unconstitutional deportation of LITERAL American citizens on an overnight, including a child with cancer deprived of medication, isn't a reasonable position. It's an attempt to normalize extreme rights violations.
> Remigration is an ugly business, but it has to happen if you want to live in a sovereign nation under the rule of law.
god, what enemies do you have?? I don't know how you go from "give them due process" to "the west has fallen" unless you mean restricting migration by law, which Biden proposed and Trump rejected last year. I'm actually curious - are you aware of that law? Did you hear about it?
>Saying "there is no such thing as a perfect process" when discussing the unconstitutional deportation of LITERAL American citizens on an overnight, including a child with cancer deprived of medication, isn't a reasonable position. It's an attempt to normalize extreme rights violations.
As I've mentioned in other comments non-judicial removals (no immigration hearing) are in fact very common accounting for nearly 75% of all removals. Deportation of American citizens has happened, and it is wrong. It's been happening every year in small numbers for the last 30 years. In the OP case in particular the children were deported with the parents at the parent's request according to a DHS statement. So this was not a mistake.
>I'm actually curious - are you aware of that law? Did you hear about it?
Of course, you're talking about The Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. The 'immigration amendment' wasn't really necessary and you could argue the better electronic communications outlined in the bill actually could increase immigration efficiency. It was a very popular lie that legislation was needed to stop millions of illegals from entering the country during the Biden administration. Border crossings have dropped ~95% since the new administration took over. Probably for two main reasons, no more parole while waiting for a hearing and NGO funding drying up.
If you think it's wrong then it certainly does not 'has to happen if you want to live in a sovereign nation under the rule of law'
If you can't criticize the overall objective (large-scale depopulation of America because so-called undesirables don't meet arbitrary legal criteria) then at least criticize the approach - don't call it an ugly but necessary business.
Call it a completely unnecessary violation of civil rights and due process that it is! Don't make up garbage about sovereignty.
My argument was that remigration is never going to be pretty however it is necessary to enforce your immigration laws as a nation to be fully sovereign. Deporting citizens was never part of that argument. It's obviously wrong, it's been happening at a small scale for decades. If that number changes and we see even a 2-3x growth in the number Americans mistakenly deported, I'll be the first in line to call for regime change. It's unacceptable just like the talk of sending US Citizens to foreign prisons, it's just insane.
At this point I mostly agree with you, but I kinda want to keep going on the sovereignty thing. Prosecutorial discretion and state incapacity to prosecute every crime has existed... literally forever. Sovereignty only means "supreme power or authority" - I don't see how migrants threaten it, it's not like they're trying to lead an insurrection or anything.
Sovereignty may have been an imprecise word choice for sure. However, I do not think having 10's of millions of people in the country without legal status who can be easily abused is 'a good thing'. I also don't think amnesty is a viable solution. So mass remigration is the only real solution I see. As we approach a post-labor economy over the coming decades how many more people do we actually need? I don't know I'm not an economist but, my gut tells me not a whole lot.
You didn't ask but what's my ideal immigration solution? I'm not an expert but this seems common sense to me, maybe it's extreme let me know. RICO the NGO's who funded the mass migration. Offer a check and a plane ride for anyone that wants to self deport. Stiff penalties and permanent banning and deportation for those that don't take the offer. On the legal immigration side cancel all non-tourist visa types and let existing visas expire. Replace them with a simple employer sponsored visa with a ~400k/year (inflation adjusted) payroll tax and let any company that wants to pay the tax sponsor as many people as they want. The free market would sort out who is the best and brightest and bring them over. Provide these people and their immediate families with an easy path to citizenship over ~5-10 years. Probably need some solution for allowing in seasonal farm workers.
The free market will determine the best place for these people without arbitrary categories that you've given, we should let in basically anyone who wants to come. NGOs are good. They should stay, it helps with integration and placement.
I don't see why you create random liberalization rules and call it free market, those are as arbitrary as the ones we currently have. People should be free to move where they want with only the same small checks we have in place for visitor visas.
> I don't know I'm not an economist but, my gut tells me not a whole lot.
please read the literature, it's now easier than ever with gpt web + most researchers pitching their work on twitter
I wield power, about 10M a year in revenue. I'll read literature if you link it.
NGOS are probably not good. Beyond averages they pay their staff far more than market which indicates it's likely a scam because they don't make anything.
- Immigrants are good, especially if you let them assimilate
- Immigrants will assimilate if given the tools
- Current NGOs can provide the tools effectively for low cost
I'm going to crib from the badeconomics faq and igm polls for this first part on econ, it's pretty good:
There's a few different papers:
- The first big one that I'm aware of is the Card Mariel Boat Lift paper by the nobel prize winner David Card way back in 1990: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2523702. He found that this labor shock - an increase in the labor market by 125k (7%) in the sequence of three months (May to September 1980) led to practically no impact on wages and employment of locals, even in the very short run (you'll find me arguing with someone else elsewhere in this thread about someone who doggedly refuses to believe this result).
- For an aggregate, very broad look, the best thing is the national academy study: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/23550/chapter/1. This engages people from all over the spectrum and is compiled by 14 economists in consultation with tens more, including some from the Center of Immigration Studies (this is, in my opinion, a hack organization by Stephen Miller, but I'm including it just to underscore the commitment to ideological breadth by the authors). It finds basically what I've been saying, direct effects of wages are small and reject the null hypothesis only on localized non-high-school graduates, and then only just, and the long run economic and fiscal impacts are very positive. As the united states has... more or less unlimited financing capability, all else equal, this makes them a near-unconditional asset from an economic perspective.
- Here's some polls on migration by the US econ experts panel (they also have surveys on other topics, I always enjoy reading them)
- High skilled immigrants (you'd agree with them): https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/high-skilled-immigra...
- Low-skilled immigrants: https://www.kentclarkcenter.org/surveys/low-skilled-immigran... . Note that some of the disagreement is driven by comments such as "Real income of avg the American would rise, but social strains and inequality would also increase." which is a bit different than a pure economic argument
Anyway, I can also give some stats on why remigration would be an actually economically devastating policy, but I'd like to address nonprofits because I think this is our biggest disagreement and I think that the possible benefits flow naturally into this next part.
The literature review and the large NAS report allude that to get the maximum benefit from migration, you need assimilation (as anyone hearing miserable stories of Stockholm and Goteborg ghettos can attest to, to say nothing of hawkers in SF denied work permits). The government can technically asssimilation services (the easiest one being work permits! Costs negative!), but traditionally does not. Instead, when it does get involved, requires taking a third party service (a bit like driving school).
The biggest example for this is language! In this, a paper in 2021 shows that there's a "significant, permanent, and positive effect on earnings" using denmark as an example - notably, it also brings _crime_ down for the children of the parents who took the reform. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26834
Reading the related work in the paper, some hits:
- In the US, there's similar results. Massachusetts rolled out an English second language program and it led to a similar significant, permanent, and positive effect on earnings.
- In France, there's similar results, but the details are huge: only 100 hours of language training raises labor force participation by 15-27 percent. I'd be careful with this result, there's some weird variables about it, but this is a gigantic swing (overall labor force participation is ~80% in france)
Note that this _actually combines with our earlier analysis_: remember how I said that the only example of there being some wage discontinuity with natives was in very low paying jobs? This is likely due to language: https://www.nber.org/papers/w17609 - the gap in wages disappears upon learning the language
Beyond language training, other services exist: job matching programs, housing programs, cultural programs, all things with similarly positive spillover effects. No paper sticks out here but I can search harder upon request.
On $200M of revenue, the CEO's TC was 500k, eyeballing the execs seems like ~$200k for 9 directors with the rest unpaid and an average salary of $55k. That seems fine to me.
A last note - why is it not private?
The largest beneficiary of migration is the immigrant, who can boost lifetime earnings by 2 or 3x just because of ___location, even before considering the intrinsic human capital increase. There's clearly value to be captured.
This is something I'm a lot more curious about. 100 or fewer years before it was obvious: indentured servitude was banned, so there was no way to properly align incentives from any way except at the national level through taxing the economic activity that they generated (income, consumption, whatever. It's all the same in the end).
I'm not sure if it'd be _impossible_ now, income driven repayment plans exist, which are essentially weird capped equity slices in people. I'm not sure if legally it all works, but at a high level it's possible! However, we've seen pretty miserable results elsewhere with for-profit companies in the human capital improvement space, despite access to similar financial tools. For some reason, nonprofit universities are the best and for-profit ones are terrible. I'm not familiar with the literature here.
> On the legal immigration side cancel all non-tourist visa types and let existing visas expire.
You're saying you want to remove immigration visa's from the Spouse of a US Citizen? A US Citizen's intercountry adopted orphaned child, and immediate relatives (like a parent) of said US citizens? I mean trumps parent-in-laws already took advantage of that on their way to being naturalized, so Im sure he'd be good getting rid of that one now.
> Replace them with a simple employer sponsored visa with a ~400k/year (inflation adjusted) payroll tax and let any company that wants to pay the tax sponsor as many people as they want.
You also want US farms to pay 400K/year for their seasonal farm workers (H-2A), when they are already squeezed by the couple thousands they pay plus all the other cost currently? Do you want to be able to afford food?
I guess we can put up windmills on current farm land and import all food from countries that exploit their workers and pay them far less than $15-20/h these workers get. They probably don't provide meals, safe housing & work conditions either, as is already required with H-2A. Now you want them to pay 400k on top of that because it's difficult to find US Citizens who do not see this kind of farm work as "below" them?
Sure, Spousal visas make sense. No prob. I also said that there needs to be a seasonal farm work visa. It was an off the cuff framework but yes, those things make sense.
> I also said that there needs to be a seasonal farm work visa.
That's the issue with current leadership and your chain of thinking on an issue with only a passing broad assumption of the ___domain. A large enough portion of the population has been convinced that drastic change needs to happen. Now when a wreaking ball attacks a component of a larger machine, people say good it wasn't needed, look the machine is still working, I mean it's sputtering and smoking but working, give it time - then ignore it and move on to wreaking something else. The problem is wanting this drastic change without even understanding what is being wreaked in the first place or trying to understand why it's there.
I specifically said H-2A. There doesn't need to be seasonal farm work visa's added to your idea. We already have them.
Best data I can find says it's been on the order of >20 <100 per year over the last ~30 years. Which seems relatively reasonable given the size the denominator. Wrongly deporting legal residents and citizens is obviously awful but there is no such thing as a perfect process.
Hard to tell since the legacy media has historically leaned left (and has tended tend to look the other way on stories that make democrat administrations look bad), but I would not be surprised if, out of 7 million, some % of corner cases slipped through due to human error.
“We’re incompetent and can’t achieve our goals by following the same laws and due process previous administrations used so we’re just going to perform as many random acts of evil and right violations to the people we can grab and hope that makes up the difference “
I know, right? The incompetence is mind blowing. At least they stopped letting people in, but they'll never reach their stated goals. To be fair though 'due process' via a hearing isn't that common in deportations in this country.
"The Obama administration has prioritized speed over fairness in the removal system, sacrificing individualized due process in the pursuit of record removal numbers.
A deportation system that herds 75 percent of people through fast-track, streamlined removal is a system devoid of fairness and individualized due process."[1]
3/4 of Obama era deportations were 'nonjudicial removals' meaning that there was no hearing in front of an immigration judge before removal. People just didn't care as much then I suppose.
Oh cool, horrendous things like this have been done for years. I guess it's fine then, human rights violations aren't real if someone else did them too. /s
It's 2018. Children are being separated from their parents and kept in cages[1]. It's really important to notice that the pictures in this article are not from reporters, leaks or anything of the sort. They were released by Customs and Border Protection and, no doubt, make things look better than they were.
What has changed since Trump's first term? Yes, there is now a stronger sensitivity to separating children from their parents, among the public at least. One solution is to simply deport child citizens along with non-citizen parents and claim it was by choice.
What solutions are we not seeing in the media though? How many photos are being published about conditions in ICE facilities, Guantanamo bay, etc.? What's going on that we just don't know about this time? If some judge ordered the release of photos of current conditions in ICE facilities, they'd be ignored or even charged with some made-up crime.
I see a lot of people here trying to reason this away, but it's going to be worse than last time and, eventually, the truth will get out. I know it's tough to care about this while Trump is simultaneously tanking the stock market, waging trade wars, threatening multiple countries with invasion or annexation, etc.. That is by design. Even Americans who cannot spare any sympathy for immigrants need to make the time to care about how their government is treating American children.
[1]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44518942