yes.

I'd hate to get a speeding ticket if you were in charge.

Not to disagree with your point, but I believe in most if not all states, a speeding violation is not a misdemeanor. Obviously, some extreme speeding violations (racing, excessive speed, reckless driving) could be misdemeanors, but most aren't.

It's got nothing to do with me being in charge, I'm just talking about the reality of what happens all the time in this country. Example: most DUI arrests are misdemeanors, carrying extremely similar penalties to illegal border crossings. There are 1.5 million DUI arrests every year in the United States. That's one example. In most jurisdictions, the felony/misdemeanor line is crossed when something exceeds a year jail time. We send people to jail for several months to a year for all sorts of things. Those are misdemeanors; those split up families. That's the point.

I think it depends on the state. Same with jaywalking. Pretty sure public intoxication is a misdemeanor everywhere.

How many misdemeanors include shipping your child off to another state with no knowledge of where they are or how to reunite?

I think I've already addressed that, but I would definitely hold that part of it is completely unacceptable.

So much of this comes down to the issue of cash bail which fucks the poor who haven't yet been convicted of a crime. Rich people don't lose their kids when they are arrested because they can afford to post bail and go home.

One weird thing I've noticed about the stuff Trump has problems with. They're all old stuff. I almost wonder if there is some weird thing with boomers where they get stuck on issues from 20 years ago. Similar to how our music tastes are heavily influenced by what we listened to as a teenager.

- Illegal immigration is way down. It's like a quarter of what it was in the 80's and 90's and that's been a gradual decline over the years.

- China hasn't manipulated it's currency in some time. This was an issue a decade or so ago, not now.

- Crime is universally down across the country over the past few decades.

- There isn't an automotive competition with Japan like in the 80's (when Reagan put those dumb tariffs on them). They build most of their cars here now.

- Coal is done. Technological advancements in the natural gas industry have just made it obsolete. And there are less jobs because mines are more efficient. Again, he think it's the 70's or 80's when this was actually an issue.

You could go on about NAFTA, the steel industry, tariffs, etc. It's almost all stuff that was a big concern 10-30 years ago. It's maybe what made Hillary the perfect foil.

It makes me wonder when we get older if we'll be stuck on the news today even if it's largely irrelevant. Will mass shootings go away and we'll still be treating them like huge problems? Will we be talking about fracking when that industry is on it's last legs? Maybe the key to getting the older vote is just focus relentlessly on issues from their past.

I don't know if you are trying to say illegal immigration really isn't an issue anymore because the numbers are decreasing. The numbers that I think you are citing are in "border crossings/apprehensions".

You are right, those numbers are decreasing. However, the total number of illegals in the US reached a peak in 2007 at 12.2 and now down "only" to 11.3 in 2015. Table 1, in link below, shows a good graphic from 1990 to 2015, you can see the historical trend and, IMO, you can see illegals in the US is still a problem.

Now if one doesn't believe the peak of 2007 at 12.2 was a problem then, I understand why one wouldn't think 2015 at 11.3 is not a problem. But we shouldn't say that illegal immigration is not a problem because crossings are way down, many are here already.

5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

One interesting note on the Pew research, it referred to "illegals" as "unauthorized immigrants". I'm actually okay with this wording as I don't think "undocumented" (that some others here prefer) is accurate. I'll try to remember and start using "unauthorized" going forward.

The People. It’s written all over our documents.


A respectful act of disobedience? Wouldn’t that just be civility? Can you think of a social/moral movement that was successful because it was respectful? The very essence of civil disobedience is reacting to an immoral, disrespectful system. In way, you are saying: I expect the people being treated immorally show their displeasure politely.

MLK said in his last speech:All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.”

America’s greatness is precisely because of acts against governments protesting their (immoral) rule of law. It is not a zero sum situation, protesting and questioning laws is exactly what keeps us from being a totalitarian state.

Maybe not see it from space like the Great Wall but I'm pretty sure Google Maps will capture it in all its glory. Besides the space force is for extra- terrestrial aliens, not the "unauthorized aliens" we've been talking about.

The majority of the country (e.g. "the people") is against unauthorized immigration. Whatever dissent there is right now won't overcome that anytime soon.

If there is armed dissent (e.g. like a revolt against the British), I'm pretty sure it'll be quashed quickly.

The only way is to change or reform what you don't like through the legislative process. Elect a President and Congress that supports your views and make the change over time.

BTW - you can place much of the blame on the approx 35% of registered Democrats (vs 32% of registered Republicans) that did not vote in 2016 and therefore handed the world Trumpism.

Yeah, I'm talking about people coming across the border. Not people who've been here for a couple decades. Most of the rhetoric is about building a wall to keep people out. This isn't the 80's and 90's where floods of immigrants were coming across the border. The wall stuff made more sense back then.

2/3 of that eleven million have been in the U.S. for over a decade. There's no realistic scenario where millions of otherwise law-abiding folks with ties to their communities are rounded up and shipped to their native country. Whether you want it to happen or not, it's logistically and politically impossible.

I actually agree with you for the most part (but I don't know what the cut off is, it may be a decade, it may be 5 years, it may be 15). I certainly don't think all the 11M should get a free pass and definitely not the felons.

Let's do a holistic immigration reform and grandfather "some" of the legacy unauthorized into a PR (e.g. like what Reagan did in the last big immigration reform).

The key here is (1) reform it through the process vs flaunting the laws and (2) make sure that we don't get another 11M in the next 20 years. Reagan's immigration plan was supposed to stop more unauthorized but obviously it didn't. I support Trump's Wall as part of a larger holistic immigration reform. If Trump's Wall will reduce future "unauthorized" (e.g. not a repeat of Reagan's failure) so we don't have to deal with this again in 20 years, I'm all for it.

Which one of these two statements do you hold to? They conflict directly. If the People get to decide what laws are immoral, they do so and change the laws. If on the other hand a subset get to decide what the People have decided is immoral and violate it, that's something else entirely.

Didn't see this before I responded to JPhillips.

Here's what I remember about past immigration reform and my stance on Trump's Wall.

1) Reagan did immigration reform. As part of the reform, it "legalized" some of the unauthorized. It was supposed to stop/reduce future unauthorized
2) It obviously failed in stopping/reducing future unauthorized. The "floods" of unauthorized came back after the 90's
3) I believe we need to do another round of immigration reform through the legislative process. I agree with JPhillips that many of the 11M unauthorized, like Reagan's plan, will need to be legalized
4) I support Trump's wall as part of a bigger immigration reform package to stop future unauthorized so we don't have to deal with this again (!) 20 years from now.

Hence, I support the Wall as part of a holistic immigration reform (e.g. legal and unauthorized immigration, addressing supply and demand etc.)

To your statement, if you believe a Wall would have made sense then, I contend it would also make sense now. History has repeated itself in our immigration reform failure.

That’s my whole point. People say they are against undocumented immigration, yet their actions and actions of our elected officials say otherwise. Which is more truthful- an empty proclamation of belief or demonstrative economic and legislative evidence?

The rich and powerful make the rules to stay rich and powerful. Therefore, whatever mixed situation we have now must be one in which benefits the rich and powerful.

If everyone working in the restaurants, farms, factories and gardens were wearing full burqas, how long would it take for that to end, despite an economic benefit?

There are very clear historic examples of the people that are being harmed are also the ones who can’t vote and/or hold the least power. So are you asking, why don’t the privileged change the laws?

I may be mistaken, but are you saying "people say they are against undocumented immigration, but people's and elected official's actions say otherwise?"

I don't see this. The people as a whole are against unauthorized immigration. I do think the "actions" of the people and elected officials are consistent with this. If you are saying the "actions" are not consistent, please provide some examples.


I disagree with this. There are truths to what you say but it generalizes too much and its too presumptuous/definite IMO.


I'm having a hard time understanding and relating to your question because I cannot picture everyone wearing a burqa in the US. It just won't happen in the US so I don't see the the "economic benefit".

Maybe they are just creating this troll-bots fuzz to cover other typer of activity?

Rich russians are buying property all around the world, and they are especially like US, UK, and Germany -

"The total amount of money sent abroad by Russian nationals in 2017 was $31.3 billion, which exceeds the 2016 figure ($24.8 billion) by 26%(.....) We believe that the volume of capital outflow from Russia for property transactions will continue to rise in 2018, largely through investment purchases. The main investment flow will be aimed at the traditional market leaders: Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. "
Russian foreign property investments grow for the first time in 4 years, exceeding $1 billion – Tranio.Com

Maybe in a few years russians would not need trolls anymore to change the election's results - they would vote themselfes as citizens

There is a significant jump from property owner to voting citizen

True, but they have some time to develop. You can see from the article - the process is going on for years already. It's like rich families business

The vast majority of them have jobs. Someone is offering those jobs to them and looking the other way in verifying their work status. And officials and regulators don't care all that much about it.

You could eliminate most illegal immigration by putting in more stringent means of verifying employment. By punishing businesses who hire illegal immigrants. It would not be difficult to do either.

Elected officials won't do that because it hurts big business. Those are their donors. Sure they throw some red meat to their base about building a wall to keep brown people out. But they know it won't do much and be expensive as hell.

The problem isn't hiring companies looking the other way. Its literally how do you know. Ive posted earlier I employ two guys who I suspect aren't fully honest with me. But both have IDs, birth certificates and SS#. I am told these three docs cost about $450 on the market.


I mentioned earlier about my two employees. Brian and Eric. Both have last names that would lead me to doubt they are hispanic. I also must say Brian is amazing looking for 53. I wouldn't put him a day over 30. I question his paperwork. But its all there and it all matches. Not only "should" I not do more, it is illegal for me to further investigate his paperwork. If I choose not to hire him based on my suspicion that he is falsifying his identification I am committing discrimination.


Fix that issue. Fix that the business owner cant exercise judgement without facing potential litigation...or tell me how you think I should handle it.

You can make e-verify mandatory for businesses of certain sizes. Make e-verify more accurate and easy to use as well.

Sure, I agree with this statement. His statement referred to "the people" and "elected officials".

Where is "the people" which I equate to regular US Citizens/PR.

You want to blame businesses and local politicians in California, Texas, Florida (the 3 largest by far), maybe add a couple more, and crack down on them, I'm good with it.

But let's not say "the people" and let's acknowledge that its primarily the businesses and elected officials in a few states that are in on this.

I actually agree that more can be done to catch and penalize employers (e.g. the demand). You and ISiddiqui replied to my response to AENeuman when I questioned his statement on "the people" and "elected officials" being inconsistent on what they say vs do/support re: unauthorized immigration.

You want to blame businesses and elected officials in the states with most unauthorized, I agree with you. Let's keep "the people" and majority of other elected officials out of this.

Are businesses not made up of "the people". They are. And when people realize that harder immigration crackdown hurts businesses and puts their own jobs in jeopardy, they tend to not be happy at that.

In my conversation with AENueman in #10831 and #10837, I defined "The majority of the country (e.g. "the people") is against unauthorized immigration".

He responded by saying "That’s my whole point. People say they are against undocumented immigration, yet their actions and actions of our elected officials say otherwise. Which is more truthful- an empty proclamation of belief or demonstrative economic and legislative evidence?".

So in this context, I took him to mean "the people" = majority of the country because he was responding to me.

Certainly not the business owners in the 3 major states that uses unauthorized people.

That's because the people that run the economy realize these immigrants are a net positive for the economy and are essential to the long-term health of entitlements.

So does the "majority of the country" take to the streets that business owners are hiring undocumented workers? Do they refuse in shops that hire undocumented? Are they refusing to eat in restaurants where the kitchen staff have undocumented workers (btw, all 50 states have undocumenteds - to only mention 3 major states completely misses the entire point)?

No. Because it's all talk.

If I'm reading your post(s) correctly, you think there is a "cabal" of businesses & federal/state/local government that is organizing and directing all this mess we call illegal immigration to benefit themselves?

There may be some truth in "some" businesses and "some local/state elected officials" doing this but I don't see all/most states and not the federal government involved.

The federal government has been proven ineffective in controlling unauthorized immigration (e.g. 11M or 3.4% of population). Its not because they really want unauthorized immigration, its because they are the federal government and are full of inefficiencies, differing interests, bureaucracy, and have to work with the legislature and how laws are crafted.

For businesses, I suspect High Tech, Big banks, Healthcare industries etc. couldn't give a flip. Its the smaller businesses and maybe Tyson/Perdue and the like.

If the federal/state government was smart, they would encourage highly-skilled immigration. I would plan for, say, 5.5M or 50% of highly skilled legal immigrants out of the current 11M unauthorized immigrants. Proponents of unauthorized immigrants on this board have said its a net-positive. If that's the case, think about how much more net-positive for highly skilled immigrants.

How would "the people" know if a business owner/restaurant is hiring undocumented workers?

For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye.

For small business, how would one know?

Using my Tyson/Perdue example, I suspect there is probably some unauthorized workers there but, on the other hand, I would also think the government is watching them. There are probably some one-off chicken farms that contract to them that uses unauthorized but is Tyson/Perdue doing this en-masse now?

The majority of people do care about and are against "unauthorized immigration". There is a substantial hard-core % as evident by the Trump supporters.

That's way too broad. I'm saying the status quo serves the interests of those that control the economy and also Congress. If they lobbied for some sort of immigration restrictions it would happen. They don't, though, because the system works for them.

Look how quickly the tax bill passed. When the powerful want something done, it generally gets done.

High tech loves students with skills who overstay their visas. In the health care industry, a large number of direct care workers are undocumented. Agriculture and restaurants rely heavily on them too (agriculture industry lobbied to have Florida remove the e-verify requirement from a bill).

Most of this shit is just for show. Red meat to some racists who think they ended up failures because of border crossings. It's why the wall hasn't been funded or other measures are used to curb it. They're a huge part of our economy and businesses who really call the shots in government will never allow it to go away.

The racist card is overplayed.

This shouldn't be missed. According the WaPo, Trump has tasked DoD with planning for a withdrawal of some or all of our troops in Germany.

Sometimes it's really hard to believe he doesn't have some Russian list of "these are things we'd like you to do."

Industries of unauthorized immigrant workers | Pew Research Center

You really don't think the federal government knows who works in the agricultural industry these days? Or construction? Come on.

Really weird how his foreign policy seems to align precisely with what Russia wants us to do.

You had reference my below so in your answer I'm assuming you are using the Pew research to answer.

Quote:

For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye.

I see the industries and I get that. Its not as if unauthorized immigrants are here and not doing work.

My question still stands - For big businesses, name me some? Show me there is a systemic taking advantage of unauthorized and that fed government is turning a blind eye (vs. their typical in competencies and inefficiencies)

The poultry and meat packing industries are highly reliant on undocumented labor. Hotels and restaurants run or franchised by large corporations are also very reliant on undocumented workers.

You really think high-tech loves the liability of hiring students with skills that overstay? I don't think so. No doubt there is not enough high tech students out of college but they wouldn't take the risk (they want to reform H1B, quotas, and they will offshore the work if they have to).

Healthcare wasn't mentioned in your Pew research link. Admittedly it may have fallen under "services" but I doubt there's that much happening. FWIW, I did projects for nursing home companies that own many nursing homes. They are pretty careful, there is alot of liability there. You may be talking about much smaller or independents, but they are not big businesses.

I am not denying unauthorized work happens (of course they do that's why the unauthorized are here?). I am denying that there is a cabal of big businesses and federal government taking advantage of them and federal government is turning a blind eye. Name me some big businesses that have a bunch of unauthorized that the government is not acting on. I can clearly see smaller businesses and some local/state elected officials.


I still have hopes for the Wall.

Can you post some links where this is happening and no action was taken to correct it? I'll repeat what I said to RM

Quote:

I am not denying unauthorized work happens (of course they do that's why the unauthorized are here?). I am denying that there is a cabal of big businesses and federal government taking advantage of them and federal government is turning a blind eye. Name me some big businesses that have a bunch of unauthorized that the government is not acting on. I can clearly see smaller businesses and some local/state elected officials.

These farms milking 10,000 cows might not be household names but they are large in terms of dollars. And that trickles down to farms smaller than mine. I have a friend who calls his farm ‘White Power Farm’ because he is an oddity in that he has no Latinos working for him.

As mentioned before, meat packing and poultry and I’d also add produce. Maybe it’s a marketing opportunity for somebody to take advantage of? This milk is guaranteed to have been harvested by farms that only employee verified American citizens.

Cargill, Del Monte, Tyson to name a few.

The federal government could make e-verify mandatory. They could improve the service by making it easier, cheaper, and more accurate. They could arrest and prosecute business owners for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants (instead of just fining them paltry amounts).

Ask yourself why the federal government doesn't go after the source for why people cross the border?

Florida was going to make e-verify mandatory. Agirculture, tourism, and construction industry came in and said nope.

Florida constitution commission rejects immigration verification proposal - Sun Sentinel

Yes, I work in this field. Why pay some American $120,000 when you can get the work done for half that from someone who overstayed their visa? They don't hire them directly, just use a service that takes the risk. Happens all the time.

The tech industry is the one pushing as hard as possible for more H-1B visas. You don't think Zuckerberg is passionate about immigration because he cares about their plight? He wants that cheap labor.

Cargill.

I did a google search on "cargill illegal workers" and "cargill undocumented workers". I went about 3 pages deep.

A couple articles about some unauthorized at a Cargill plant etc. Nothing much. If you have links that shows this systemic abuse, please link it.

Del Monte

I did a google search on "del monte illegal workers" and "del monte undocumented workers". I went about 3 pages deep.

Raid in 2007 on Del Monte plant that netted 170 undocumented. 2013 article on Del Monte paying a $1.2M fine for human trafficking of Thais in Hawaii.

If you have links that shows this systemic abuse, please link it.

Tyson

I did a google search on "tyson illegal workers" and "tyson undocumented workers". I went about 3 pages deep.

Tyson had the most articles on violations etc. But they were old, saw this from a 2011 post. And keep in mind that the Tyson has been charged, fined etc. so the government is doing something about it.

Pressing employers won't fix the problem of undocumented workers

Bottom-line, I still don't see it.

Quote:

I am not denying unauthorized work happens (of course they do that's why the unauthorized are here?). I am denying that there is a cabal of big businesses and federal government taking advantage of them and federal government is turning a blind eye. Name me some big businesses that have a bunch of unauthorized that the government is not acting on. I can clearly see smaller businesses and some local/state elected officials.

Here's the answer to your e-verify question from at least one source
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ma...ion-2016-11-02

I read this as - the democrats in trying to help the unauthorized immigrants (e.g. amnesty) is preventing required, nationwide use of e-verify. I am sure if all the unauthorized people told the democrats to stop opposing it, it would go through.


I think this is a fair question. If you have better research that tells you why, link it.

Here are my thoughts & suspicions as to "why the federal government doesn't go after the source for why people cross the border".

1) But they do in many occasions. Look at the Tyson example above, there's plenty more examples I'm sure
2) Its not just a "demand" thing, its also the "supply". We haven't been able to stop the supply. Do you think the small businesses would actively smuggle in unauthorized if we had a full clamp down? No, they are just using whats available (e.g. supply) to them. Re: All recent presidents want to go after the supply, they all had their ideas on immigration reform. Nothing has passed because of the state of our politics, the ineffectiveness and inefficiencies.
3) Because there are plenty of ACLU and unauthorized advocates that put up alot of resistance
4) Not enough money in the budget

Probably others but this is what comes to mind.

Mueller asks to delay Flynn sentencing for another two months-third time he's asked for a delay:


https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/29/polit..._source=twCNNi

I work in IT also. I have not seen this, please provide a link that details this?

I have seen where high-tech companies use other vendors, no doubt. But I've not seen where these vendors use students that overstayed their visa (or at least not in a systemic way). It will be an interesting read if this really does happen.

Zuckerberg just wants the best labor, he's not going after low cost.

I'm not sure who'd want to do the work to supply links, you're not going to believe them anyway.

("Triangle shirtwaist fire? I fail to see how that had any relevance to workplace safety.")

I provide links to support what I say and help clarify (like the burqa vs hijab link). But they don't believe me anyway so I guess you are right.

No idea about your second paragraph.

Yes I am a technology C-level (CISO) for a global 100 and this is absolutely the case.

I feel like you are being purposely obtuse, for some reason. Many posters have said the same thing, many different ways, all to be met with a stubborn refusal to hear any of it.

I’m not sure what you are looking for, you have your beliefs seemingly based on your own observations and your gut, which is fine, we all do.

Americans like cheap food. Meat and vegetables, we love our dollar menus. Cheap food happens because of cheap labor on the farms, in processing plants, and in the kitchens. Domestic/child care help by undocumented people are everywhere. Gardner’s and construction workers (roofers) are everywhere. So, here we have what we eat, where we live and who looks after our children all done, in some parts, by millions of undocumented people. If Americans were truly against this “invasion” then there are plenty of industries we could focus on. It would mean however, a fundamental shift in our purchasing power and lifestyle. I don’t doubt most people are against immigration, I just think in most cases they are purposely turning a blind eye to their own purchases.

Not sure what else to say about the rich and powerful making the rules to stay rich and powerful. I mean, wealth is becoming more concentrated right? Uber rich are getting richer right? So, wouldn’t it make sense that they would want to keep the current political and economic environment? Look who gives the money, none are talking about immigration, rather they all want less government oversight.

The big corporations have learned how to maintain deniability. They contract work and make statements about their serious desire to work within immigration law. When their suppliers are busted they vow never to work with them again and move on to new suppliers doing the same thing.

When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements. Instead, its likely because the government is as inefficient here as they are in plenty of other areas.

There is plenty of evidence that majority of Americans are against unauthorized immigration (don't think there is a dispute here). Many did something about it by voting for Trump.

Well there’s plenty of scholarly books and articles on the topic if you are interested in learning about it. I would suggest, however, just googling stuff is probably not the best means.

This is what makes me mad. If we can determine where the illegals are, why are we not doing anything about it?

Is it incumbent upon companies to double and triple check identification and employment papers?

If we had a less permeable border, and did not have the cheap labor, these companies would be forced to pay someone domestically more money to do the same job. That would also keep the money here, rather than leaving the country.

There is a quote, if there are two equally valid reasons for the action of government and one of them is incompetence, always assume that is the reason.

Why don't you pick a couple and quote some significant passages from them for everyone here to react to vs. the more general, presumptive statements.

I like it. An Occam's razor variant.

Sigh, ok, 5 days ago. These U.S. industries can't work without illegal immigrants - CBS News

Judging by the pronouncements from the White House, you might think most people don't realize how integral undocumented immigrants are to the U.S. economy. But in fact, polls suggest that Americans do understand this, and also don't believe that immigrants take their jobs.

In a soon-to-be-published poll Cornell conducted in 2017, we asked New Yorkers, "How do you believe undocumented farmworkers impact local communities?"

About 75 percent of those we polled said they have "generally positive impacts," up from 62 percent in 2008. Of those who had a positive impression, most said it was because migrants fill jobs unwanted by citizens or provide essential farm help and keep prices low.

Oh dear, here we ago again with not answering the question.

I read the article. I agree that unauthorized workers are needed (e.g. get them into a guest worker program), please to hear many Americans are happy they do the farm/agriculture bit because they don't want to do it ... but how does that answer the below? I actually didn't see any facts or support details for the cabal?

We just broke the lower barrier of what some economists believed was possible in terms of unemployment. The immigrants aren't taking our jobs, or at least if they are they are creating new jobs that help offset.

And here's a summary of an Emory Law article

Here's from an executive summary on a study about converting ag to a legal workforce.

The first three paragraphs from a Pew study on immigrant job screening

This from a Pro Publica story on Case Farms

From a story on PA fruit and poultry

From a story on AL law

Are these post in response to what I think we are discussing right now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edward64 View Post When there is an extraordinary claim that businesses and federal government are in cahoots to take advantage of unauthorized immigration, that claim needs to be substantiated beyond some general, presumptuous statements. Instead, its likely because the government is as inefficient here as they are in plenty of other areas. There is plenty of evidence that majority of Americans are against unauthorized immigration (don't think there is a dispute here). Many did something about it by voting for Trump.

Cabal is your word you used to a strawman.

I’m done.

This is why I have started adding quote boxes in what I think is the discussion topic. If not we have a lot of room to say what we want without addressing the topic.

Its fair you do not like the word cabal but don't call it a strawman. You should have said much earlier in the day that "I don't agree with that term, let me clarify what I think it is ..."

Come back anytime when you have those scholarly articles.

Eh...kinda feel like you do.

You guys are pretty patient to respond to this fool. You have repeatedly made your point and he's either an idiot or being intentionally obtuse. Maybe jbmagic of politics.

If they graduated and are working off a TIN freelance or through an agency, they're likely past their visa date. There is a reason so many are working through a staffing agency instead of being hired by the company directly. A lot of vendors use those agencies.

As for Silicon Valley just wanting the best, they literally settled a suit for a ton of money for wage fixing.

Affidavit: Cargill Knowingly Hired Illegally Documented Workers
IDs Sold To Illegal Immigrants - CBS News
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...35166620070404
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-f...35166620070405
https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/...2/daily24.html


I'm not sure what your argument. On one hand you talk about how there is a huge problem with illegal immigrants. The next you don't seem to believe any of them are employed.

There are links provided showing industries that are made up of large percentages of undocumented workers. I don't have access to the company records of all the agricultural businesses. I'm simply going off studies done by reputable sources that show illegal immigrants are acquiring jobs with relative ease.

If you don't believe this is taking place, I'm not sure where to go with this.


That article is from 2016. The 2018 legislature and Presidency is controlled by the Republicans. They can pass an immigration bill at any time that mandates e-verify.

There are plenty of bright red states with huge Republican majorities that don't touch it. Heck, I posted the article about Florida dropping the e-verify stuff when huge industries in their state fought back. Republican Governor, Republican Senate, Republican House over there. Huge margins too.

The reason it's not mandatory is because a lot of big industries spend a ton of money to make sure that doesn't happen.

The below are my quotes in response to you and to AENeuman. This is what I thought we were discussing. Is this what you thought we were discussing?

I never knew it was a systemic problem. Okay.


The Zuckerberg comment you made (which I get is in the larger context of SV) was based on H1-B, immigration and cheap labor.

This lawsuit was about collusion on wages between some of the biggest high-tech companies (e.g. don't hire my person if I don't hire yours) which did suppress wages as a by product. I have actually seen this in some companies early in a new "industry" e.g. (cloud applications) where there was this informal agreement. Maybe my use of "best" is not accurate, let me scale it down to say "top talent".

Nope, still don't see how it ties. But RM has a good point, maybe we are talking about different things now as the discussion has evolved into the inevitable tangents?

He didn’t even bother to delete the old one pic.twitter.com/A47TuOFfNS

— Ryan Lizza (@RyanLizza) June 30, 2018

.

I actually don't think he's lying, because I think the first tweet was written by someone else. It's a national security issue that we don't know who is allowed to pretend to be the President.

All caps is something his mini me Stephen Miller would do, crazy how many Presidents we would have.

We know who we're allowing to pretend to be president - his name is Donald Trump and hopefully he'll only be there for a few more years :)

Maybe the first tweet was from Miller. But there are other examples.

The books analyzing his presidency and his character will be fascinating.

You'll have the historians, news journalists, but also psychiatrists/psychologists writing about him and his pathological lying.

Bolton is now saying that Putin said Russia didn't interfere in the 2016 election. It simply amazes me how quickly and freely people give up their dignity the moment they step into Trump's orbit.

And now Trump says the EU is just as bad as China, just smaller.

It will be a fucking miracle if we get out of this with the post WW2 order still intact.

Somewhat light but interesting read on the US-China trade war.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...a-tariffs-loom

This is the new definition of employment security, if there is such a thing in this admin.

As a caveat I am not super well-versed in economic theory. That being said...

Doesn't it seem like really shoddy analysis to base the impact of something that kicked off in March off of year-to-date data?

Everyone loses in a trade war but China definitely has more to lose. It does seem like these countries are targeting industries where his base lives though.

So Michael Cohen has done an interview on ABC, not Fox that aired this morning. Affirmed he put his family and country above Trump, believes in the FBI, the Mueller investigation not a witch hunt, and he's been wrongly depicted by the media as a villain. I hope Mueller was listening and called his lawyer right after the interview:


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mich...ry?id=56304585

FBI announces they foiled a July 4 attack in Cleveland by an American who had been radicalized:


Man arrested in alleged July 4 terror attack plot to hit downtown Cleveland | Daily Mail Online

From a consumer perspective it'll hit Chinese businesses more as they export more HOWEVER ... China isn't a capitalist setup and as such is less affected by profit/loss as the US.

Finally trade wars are a lose/lose scenario really - if the the US wins it'll be by having less of a decline than other countries, that is prices rising 'less' than elsewhere and the country losing fewer jobs than other countries ... not really a great victory really ..

Finally manufacturing jobs will only return to the US if wages decline sufficiently to make it competitive - Republicans have already started action to try to encourage this by weakening unions etc.

But it won't be wages declining that brings manufacturing back, because with nascent automation, even declining wages will be "too much" to keep American manufacturing competitive.

The net result is going to be an undermining of the American standard of living in exchange for 5-10 years of those jobs coming back, and then not only will they be gone again, but the folks losing them will find themselves with a worse standard of living than they had before.

This seems more like a plea to Trump for a pardon.