I mean, I understand why south americans would dislike democrats. I am south american after all. I am not a fan of trump's intentionally cruel immigration policies but I also don't support whatever stupid nonsense it is democrats stand by nowadays. Obama deported some 3 million immigrants, I'd be fine if he had deported 25 million. If someone calls me latinx to my face i will probably just slowly back down from the probably mentally ill person in question. I can understand a variety of positions. But when it comes to mestizos supporting straight up hitler ideology what we have is these people being all for an ideology which would at best see them as somewhat more human than jewish folk. I could even understand if it was fascist policies without the race angle but it's pretty hard to separate nazis from the racial component of their ideology which was key to it.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Out of curiosity, what exactly is the "stupid nonsense" that democrats put forth these days though? Other than the establishment being mask-off corporatist stooges?
In particular I object to democrats idea of letting most or even more people in. Because... why on god's green earth would any half rational country be ok with that? I suppose in practice democrats aren't actually that open but even how open they are is too much. Then there's the issue of asylum. Asylum is a right which specific people need. but poverty or crime are not really grounds for getting it, no one should grant you asylum over not having a job back home. But if you have thousands of people requesting asylum then as I see it that's detrimental to people who are actually persecuted. Also, imagine what this looks like to people who are already there. You take the journey, eventually get your green card... Then thousands of people immigrate to the US. And then thousands more... Whose BS do you think this person is getting away from to begin with?
I mean, no country on earth supports immigration just for the heck of it. Most countries are selective of who they let in, mostly allowing people willing to do jobs the country needs done or with skills they need (barring international treaties allowing free movement of people). In the vast majority of the world the idea of letting people stay permanently just because would be regarded as unhinged. How many people are allowed in a country should be a factor of how many immigrants and for what jobs a country needs (and the US definitely needs immigrants like any other country with an aging population), not just people entering indiscriminately.
But I don't think anyone defines the Mexican immigrants as refugees... and they're not seeking asylum. They're seeking a better life than the one they're having in Mexico, and they're contributing in exchange. They're like on the opposite end of two different extremes.kckk said:
Yeah, in my post I mix regular immigration with asylum seeking. They are of course different things but there is some overlap there. I mention the border mostly because it's easier but in practice the bulk of illegal immigrants enter in other ways clearly. People walking to the border, afaik, generally are seeking asylum as a means to legally stay in the US. When it comes to asylum seeking you have people going to the US, then their bogus or unprovable claims get them rejected however many months later and... they simply stay in the US. They can get deported later on but it's not necessarily a part of the process. Even if you get asylum, what should happen is that it ends and you go back home.
For the bolded, that's fine. As far as I can tell once someone has gained asylum, once they're on their feet they can pursue legal means to become a legitimate citizen. That's what we want right? Legal citizens? Asylum isn't meant for you to have a brief respite from whatever hell you're fleeing from in your home country anyway I don't think. A refugee is someone forced to flee their country, not someone who chooses to leave of their own volition. War, natural disaster, or persecution, according to the definition. There's no going back to that unless the place that had all these problems are fixed.
I don't think there's anything insane about someone wanting to move to another country without them being some sort of overachieving worker like a doctor who super wants to make America even better with their hard work ethic. Or anything insane about letting someone like that into the country. As long as they're following the same rules (for the most part) as other American citizens, that's fine. America is built on the idea of being the land of opportunity: a country made by immigrants, for immigrants. It's inherently un-American to be anti-immigrant.
They'll never crack down for those exact reasons. Cheap labor.
That's not regarded as unhinged unless the people who regard it as such are bigots. Claiming immigrants should be let in based on jobs is putting a price on human life, and that's pretty fucked up, especially when people aren't entering indiscriminately, they're being vetted.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Not just cheap labor, but most Americans don't even want to do the work, despite what they say about illegal immigrants stealing jobs.
It's not just governmental intervention, or you know, harsh economic sanctions that only further exasperates the immigration issue.
Asylum isn't necessarily supposed to lead to permanent citizenship. That ultimately depends on the country I suppose. But if you get asylum for whichever reason and then that situation is solved it makes sense for the asylum to end and for you to go home.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
So... you think countries should just allow everyone who wants in? Straight up open borders as republicans fearmonger with?
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Ok, you kinda lost me hear. You mean the US isn't paying a livable wage? Or the countries from which south/central americans come from?
The US. There would be less demand for cheap, illegal labor if the jobs illegal immigrants tend to hold actually paid a wage closer to the actual value of the work.
Hmmmm, this could also be interpreted to to mean the US should cut the current minimum wage by half. I see this more as a supply issue tbh. It's pretty clear to me that an influx of immigrants will push wages down as they would simply be willing to work for less. You can see something like this with international college graduates whose stay in the US and eventual greencard depends on keeping the specific job they have over an extended period of time.
How... exactly? How is saying something like agricultural workers being paid a living wage equate to cutting minimum wage by half?
Which will never happen, because as much as some of these same people complain about "illegals took our jerbs", the only incentive that matters here is profit. And that is why "nothing" is being done about it. Conversatives get to have their cake and eat it too - keep costs down by paying jack shit, all while blaming Democrats for a problem they themselves are responsible for.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
--- Double Post Merged, ---
I always found it weird that they get so offended when they hear the words "white supremacist." They didn't report "The shooter was a Republican!" - they reported that he was a white supremacist. Suddenly you have all these self-proclaimed conservatives taking issue with that reporting. Sounds like they might themselves be white supremacists.
This would be incredibly hard to do. My wife and I have a business and a household employee who we withhold taxes from. To do so she needs a social security number, and having a social doesn't necessarily make you an authorized worker. Immigration is managed by USCIS and taxes are managed by the IRS. So the biggest red flag indicating that people are illegally working would be a lack of tax payment as they don't have a way to pay taxes without a social. AFAIK you also can't open a bank account without a social. So in reality cracking down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants would require vast resources, because most of these businesses are small businesses (or things like farms) that you'd never hear of unless you physically saw them. They'd have to send workers to go and prove they're US citizens, or ask employers to show the I9's of each worker on an in-person inspection. Considering how much of their resources they have to deal with just handling legal immigration alone, that is not feasible. You mentioned being South American so not sure if you're familiar with the immigration process to the USA, but basically the USCIS assigns a specific worker to a specific case, and they learn just about everything they can about the immigrant in question.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
That's oversimplified. The right's tirade against pronouns and trans people in general is gross, but they think they're righteous. If you ever talk to a right-wing nutjob they are fully convinced that the LGBTQ movement is in place to groom children. I'm not saying they're correct (and I definitely read more about youth pastors doing sketchy shit with kids than any LGBTQ), but they (voters, not representatives) do what they do out of fear. Their fear is unfounded, ignorant, and disrespectful to people who have nothing to do with them, but at the end of the day it's still their motivation. I literally have extended (asian) family telling me to be careful about public schools because they "might make my kids trans or lesbian" or something.
I suppose it might vary between banks and states but you don't need a SSN to open a bank account in the US. Heck, I opened one a few years back.