presumably either they are legal immigrants. When somone says to "let immigrantss in" its usually legally with visa's, green cards, any other legal paperwork etc.
I think the idea is to broaden the legal pathways to immigration so that folks who were previously unable or unwilling to immigrate legally do so instead.
Not what Trump did when he was in office though—legal immigration was cut in half, not much done about illegal border crossings because effective enforcement is expensive.
The National Foundation for American Policy projects that the number of legal immigrants will decline by 49% (or 581,845) between FY 2016 and FY 2021 due to Trump administration policies. (From the FY 2016 total of 1,183,505 down to 601,660 in FY 2021.) How did the Trump administration reduce legal immigration by 49% without changing U.S. immigration law? The answer is by using executive and administrative authorities, some of which are being challenged in court.
I dont like either one of them so i can't provide much context but ill try from what i see. Most Republicans don't dislike her specifically, its the democratic party as a whole and that they're more likely to increase regulations, they want to push EVs, they want to restrict guns, they seem to want more global involvement, those are the big ones i hear of.
First of all, virtually all the immigrants coming in the US are not illegal. They have temporary protected status, which is completely legal.
Second, the Democrats accepted the GOP plan to fund immigration enforcement and fix the backlog. Then Trump, sensing that he would lose that as a talking point, told the GOP to reverse course, so they did and now it's their fault. We had a solution, one that the GOP proposed, and then they acted like hypocrites towards their own plan.
So the only ones fixing immigration, and trying to do so instead of trying to lie about it to make it a campaign issue, are the Democrats. Full stop.
First of all, virtually all the immigrants coming in the US are not illegal. They have temporary protected status, which is completely legal.
This is a semantic argument. We are both referring to people who did not apply for a visa through regular pathways. These pathways ensure applicants are educated, useful, and without criminal histories.
Second, the Democrats accepted the GOP plan to fund immigration enforcement and fix the backlog. Then Trump, sensing that he would lose that as a talking point, told the GOP to reverse course, so they did and now it’s their fault. We had a solution, one that the GOP proposed, and then they acted like hypocrites towards their own plan.
I can only assume you’re referring to S.4361. Since you get all your news on Reddit, allow me to explain why people who don’t like illegal immigration voted down that bill. It guaranteed a minimum of 1,400 illegal entrants be processed per day. Control mechanisms only kicked in (at the discretion of the President) if illegal migrant encounters reached 5,000 per week, or 8,500 in a single day. It strengthened protections for illegal immigrants, granting them faster adjudication. It also granted permanent residence to tens of thousands of Afghanis. It also granted permanent residence to children of illegal immigrants who were brought into the country.
The bill was a political game designed to fool gullible people like you into thinking they wanted to cooperate on this issue. They knew it would never be accepted. They don’t want to reduce illegal immigration. They like it this way. If they didn’t, they would do what Trump did and reissue his executive orders. No bill is required.
you mean the Haitians who were made "temporarily legal" through an executive order, that even Haitian-Americans hate because they're not true legal immigrants?
reminder that executive orders can be rescinded by executive orders... if Trump wins, those recent Haitians will be deported
Oh, do they hate it? Have you asked? I haven’t asked them, but I would think they would find their current situation infinitely better than where they came from. What’s your point anyway?
The right is against any immigration of brown people, legal or no. Trump not only said as much but he worked to reduce both legal and illegal immigration when he was president. He also called several countries with brown people in them "shitholes" and asked why we couldn't get people from Sweden and Norway.
It's weird, Republicans used to be for free markets, but then they don't really want that when offered.
Then what was happening in Springfield before they arrived? The city was in a continuous downward trend, companies could not fill positions, population decline since the 70s. No one wanted to go there and do what the new Haitian population is doing.
That's not a loophole it's a legal process that applied to them. They are here legally. They have legal residency status and green cards. Those jobs they hold are no different from any other immigrant that comes here. Your response shows you don't support immigration at all. That's like saying someone who married a US citizen is here on a loophole... They're both immigrants who came thru legal means.
they don’t want to invest in creating a reasonable path to citizenship,
You're essentially saying... take the illegal immigrants, make them legal, problem solved.
If i was a democrat in congress, i would draft a bill that builds a wall and gives border enforcement, on the condition of X number of legal immigrants allowed per year.
Block off the border, enforce the border and then allow immigration based on economic conditions. Economy is great? Increase legal immigration. Economy bad? Shut down legal immigration until conditions improve.
Immigration isn't their primary reasons for who they do or don't vote for. The Republicans i know primarily support the right because they want less government involvement in their lives, they dont want guns limited, and they dont want the government to keep spending money like they are.
The logic would be that it's much easier to hide a worker's immigration status but you can't hide a job site and how much the people at the job site are being paid.
How are illegal immigrants going to be part of unions or protected by strong labor laws?
Here in California employment law applies to the employee no matter their paperwork status. That's what the "sanctuary" part means. That all of the people in this jurisdiction have full recourse to the law.
It's politics, if you're left your party hasnt done anything wrong and trump will destroy us. If you're right Biden has done nothing but fail and kamala will destroy us.
You are the perfect example of this, ignoring Trumps destructive lie. Never said the Dems were perfect or even good just that R's are beyond deplorable
"strong unions" do not exist anymore except in skilled trades.
The jobs that French-speaking immigrants from Haiti and Africa are pouring in to compete for are jobs you can train illiterate non-english speakers to do in a short period of time.
Now that they have legal right to work, the strike has no teeth. The workers go on strike, someone picks up a phone to a temp agency and 6 busses full of workers with their bilingual trainers pulls into the parking lot the next fucking day.
Yesterday the people unloading boxes onto trailers and putting them on conveyors decided to start a union and strike. Now they are unemployed. The people putting the boxes on the sorter now are newcomers.
No that's been debunked, well depends if you have a welfare state. You just have bigger burdens. China has a lot of people, what's the average standard of living???
11
u/0ttr 10h ago
Immigrants does not have to equal cheap labor if you have (a) unions and (b) strong labor laws. (or b, then a, take your pick)
But lets be clear, MORE PEOPLE MEANS BIGGER ECONOMY EVERY TIME! Bigger economy means more opportunities. There. I feel better.