Immigration bill suffers major defeat in Senate

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have you ever heard of the Great Wall of China?

Anyone who has driven on a highway surrounded by residential space has seen "great walls". There are thousands of miles of 20 feet high reinforced prefab walls on each side of interstate highways all over the DC area and Denver that were thrown up in days. Why can we do this on our highways without hassle and waste, but not along our national borders?

You'd still need troops or law enforcement to patrol it. Which is why I think the wall is unnecessary.

I doubt any answer will ever be satisfactory to you.

I haven't seen very few answers being offered other than a mantra about "enforcing existing laws". Its not unreasonable to ask how that would be achieved. As it is I can't see much of a dent being made without a signficant restructuring of the way certain government departments operate and talk to each other.

Don't suppose you'd care to offer a practical "how it can be done" answer would you?

Nope. Have no desire to talk to a brick wall.

Because you can't answer the question. I'd rather I know what exactly I'm signing up to before I jump on the bandwagon. Certainly if people are going to put slogans before a consideration of the practicality. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[no name 1]

Have you ever heard of the Great Wall of China?

Anyone who has driven on a highway surrounded by residential space has seen "great walls". There are thousands of miles of 20 feet high reinforced prefab walls on each side of interstate highways all over the DC area and Denver that were thrown up in days. Why can we do this on our highways without hassle and waste, but not along our national borders?

You'd still need troops or law enforcement to patrol it. Which is why I think the wall is unnecessary.

I doubt any answer will ever be satisfactory to you.

I haven't seen very few answers being offered other than a mantra about "enforcing existing laws". Its not unreasonable to ask how that would be achieved. As it is I can't see much of a dent being made without a signficant restructuring of the way certain government departments operate and talk to each other.

Don't suppose you'd care to offer a practical "how it can be done" answer would you?

Nope. Have no desire to talk to a brick wall.

Because you can't answer the question. I'd rather I know what exactly I'm signing up to before I jump on the bandwagon. Certainly if people are going to put slogans before a consideration of the practicality. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

9 pages of debate is enough for me.

[Caladan 19]

I suspect this is probably this administration's last shot at immigration reform.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Have you ever heard of the Great Wall of China?

Anyone who has driven on a highway surrounded by residential space has seen "great walls". There are thousands of miles of 20 feet high reinforced prefab walls on each side of interstate highways all over the DC area and Denver that were thrown up in days. Why can we do this on our highways without hassle and waste, but not along our national borders?

You'd still need troops or law enforcement to patrol it. Which is why I think the wall is unnecessary.

I doubt any answer will ever be satisfactory to you.

I haven't seen very few answers being offered other than a mantra about "enforcing existing laws". Its not unreasonable to ask how that would be achieved. As it is I can't see much of a dent being made without a signficant restructuring of the way certain government departments operate and talk to each other.

Don't suppose you'd care to offer a practical "how it can be done" answer would you?

Nope. Have no desire to talk to a brick wall.

Because you can't answer the question. I'd rather I know what exactly I'm signing up to before I jump on the bandwagon. Certainly if people are going to put slogans before a consideration of the practicality. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

9 pages of debate is enough for me.

There's been several threads on this - and still noone has offered what amounts to a practical suggestion on how we achieve it. Enforcing SSN checks is all well and good - but then there was a post by someone who managed a business and explained the problems inherent in doing that. It goes aways beyond immigration IMO. We're talking sweeping bureaucratic changes, and a significant increase in law enforcement manpower, as well as the way certain agencies communicate.

[mawilson 2,133]

We're talking sweeping bureaucratic changes, and a significant increase in law enforcement

manpower, as well as the way certain agencies communicate.

Exactly. What's so impossible about that?

[Caladan 19]

Have you looked at DHS lately?

[mawilson 2,133]

Have you looked at DHS lately?

Yes...and?

[Dan J 277]

Just relying on this wall, is expensive, and it solves nothing. Other than soak up a lot of money.

Why does it solve nothing? Soviet Union had a 5000+ mile border that not even a mouse could cross.

Do you really think the US couldn't afford a 2000 mile wall?

Spending billions is what America does best.

We can certainly afford it, but that doesn't matter. It will likely be money down the drain.

We have a goal, deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Unless your willing to spend 10s of billions every year, wall all borders and ports. Put everyone and everything going through the ports through intensive screening. Which will limit the freedoms of even citizens, putting a wall on the border with Mexico does very little to accomplish the goal.

Unless your wall goes all the way around, you just go around the wall. Get on a boat and get into the US. Or find a way into Canada and then down through the relatively unguarded border. If migrants are willing to risk their life crossing the desert to get into America, they will likely risk thier life finding another way in.

So, border enforcement, to stop illegal immigration will impose greatly on the freedom of citizens to travel. It will kill tourism and trade. Our economy which now largely depends on global trade will crash. Anything less wont stop illegal immigration through our borders and ports.

To really enforce laws regarding employment of illegal aliens would require a lot of money and it will likely increase the cost of doing business for both large and small businesses. Besides the task of getting several government organizations to work together. Which itself wont be an easy or cheap task.

We would have to require employers to report on everyone they hire, even if its for a job that just lasts a day. Which will increase the cost of doing business for large and small businesses and could drive some small businesses out of business.

According to the only-enforcement types on this board. It costs 10 billion a year for illegal immigrants to use public services. But if we are to get enforcement to a level where it will stop illegal immigration. It will have a direct cost of much more than that. And economic cost that could reach 100's of billions, and a police state where even citizens don't have much freedom.

[mawilson 2,133]

We can certainly afford it, but that doesn't matter. It will likely be money down the drain.

We have a goal, deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Unless your willing to spend 10s of billions every year, wall all borders and ports. Put everyone and everything going through the ports through intensive screening. Which will limit the freedoms of even citizens, putting a wall on the border with Mexico does very little to accomplish the goal.

Unless your wall goes all the way around, you just go around the wall. Get on a boat and get into the US. Or find a way into Canada and then down through the relatively unguarded border. If migrants are willing to risk their life crossing the desert to get into America, they will likely risk thier life finding another way in.

So, border enforcement, to stop illegal immigration will impose greatly on the freedom of citizens to travel. It will kill tourism and trade. Our economy which now largely depends on global trade will crash. Anything less wont stop illegal immigration through our borders and ports.

To really enforce laws regarding employment of illegal aliens would require a lot of money and it will likely increase the cost of doing business for both large and small businesses. Besides the task of getting several government organizations to work together. Which itself wont be an easy or cheap task.

We would have to require employers to report on everyone they hire, even if its for a job that just lasts a day. Which will increase the cost of doing business for large and small businesses and could drive some small businesses out of business.

According to the only-enforcement types on this board. It costs 10 billion a year for illegal immigrants to use public services. But if we are to get enforcement to a level where it will stop illegal immigration. It will have a direct cost of much more than that. And economic cost that could reach 100's of billions, and a police state where even citizens don't have much freedom.

I don't buy it. You're essentially saying that it's impossible to secure our border and

that is simply not true.

You don't have to limit the freedoms of U.S. citizens to effectively police the border.

Our southern border is where the problem is. You're saying "tighten up the southern

border and the illegals will find another way"? Nonsense. If if was that easy, there

would be millions of illegal Africans and Asians crossing the Canadian border, but it's

not happening. Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans! Mexicans will find a way into

Canada? How do you suppose they are going to do that? And even if they

could find a way into Canada, wouldn't they just stay and work in Canada? Why

would they risk crossing *another* border if they were already home free in Canada?

We don't have to go after every single employer that hires an illegal for a day. Let's

identify the most egregious offenders and go after them first. A solution doesn't have

to be 100% perfect to be effective. In this case, 90% would be perfectly acceptable.

[GaryC 7]

We can certainly afford it, but that doesn't matter. It will likely be money down the drain.

We have a goal, deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Unless your willing to spend 10s of billions every year, wall all borders and ports. Put everyone and everything going through the ports through intensive screening. Which will limit the freedoms of even citizens, putting a wall on the border with Mexico does very little to accomplish the goal.

Unless your wall goes all the way around, you just go around the wall. Get on a boat and get into the US. Or find a way into Canada and then down through the relatively unguarded border. If migrants are willing to risk their life crossing the desert to get into America, they will likely risk thier life finding another way in.

So, border enforcement, to stop illegal immigration will impose greatly on the freedom of citizens to travel. It will kill tourism and trade. Our economy which now largely depends on global trade will crash. Anything less wont stop illegal immigration through our borders and ports.

To really enforce laws regarding employment of illegal aliens would require a lot of money and it will likely increase the cost of doing business for both large and small businesses. Besides the task of getting several government organizations to work together. Which itself wont be an easy or cheap task.

We would have to require employers to report on everyone they hire, even if its for a job that just lasts a day. Which will increase the cost of doing business for large and small businesses and could drive some small businesses out of business.

According to the only-enforcement types on this board. It costs 10 billion a year for illegal immigrants to use public services. But if we are to get enforcement to a level where it will stop illegal immigration. It will have a direct cost of much more than that. And economic cost that could reach 100's of billions, and a police state where even citizens don't have much freedom.

I don't buy it. You're essentially saying that it's impossible to secure our border and

that is simply not true.

You don't have to limit the freedoms of U.S. citizens to effectively police the border.

Our southern border is where the problem is. You're saying "tighten up the southern

border and the illegals will find another way"? Nonsense. If if was that easy, there

would be millions of illegal Africans and Asians crossing the Canadian border, but it's

not happening. Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans! Mexicans will find a way into

Canada? How do you suppose they are going to do that? And even if they

could find a way into Canada, wouldn't they just stay and work in Canada? Why

would they risk crossing *another* border if they were already home free in Canada?

We don't have to go after every single employer that hires an illegal for a day. Let's

identify the most egregious offenders and go after them first. A solution doesn't have

to be 100% perfect to be effective. In this case, 90% would be perfectly acceptable.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We can certainly afford it, but that doesn't matter. It will likely be money down the drain.

We have a goal, deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Unless your willing to spend 10s of billions every year, wall all borders and ports. Put everyone and everything going through the ports through intensive screening. Which will limit the freedoms of even citizens, putting a wall on the border with Mexico does very little to accomplish the goal.

Unless your wall goes all the way around, you just go around the wall. Get on a boat and get into the US. Or find a way into Canada and then down through the relatively unguarded border. If migrants are willing to risk their life crossing the desert to get into America, they will likely risk thier life finding another way in.

So, border enforcement, to stop illegal immigration will impose greatly on the freedom of citizens to travel. It will kill tourism and trade. Our economy which now largely depends on global trade will crash. Anything less wont stop illegal immigration through our borders and ports.

To really enforce laws regarding employment of illegal aliens would require a lot of money and it will likely increase the cost of doing business for both large and small businesses. Besides the task of getting several government organizations to work together. Which itself wont be an easy or cheap task.

We would have to require employers to report on everyone they hire, even if its for a job that just lasts a day. Which will increase the cost of doing business for large and small businesses and could drive some small businesses out of business.

According to the only-enforcement types on this board. It costs 10 billion a year for illegal immigrants to use public services. But if we are to get enforcement to a level where it will stop illegal immigration. It will have a direct cost of much more than that. And economic cost that could reach 100's of billions, and a police state where even citizens don't have much freedom.

I don't buy it. You're essentially saying that it's impossible to secure our border and

that is simply not true.

You don't have to limit the freedoms of U.S. citizens to effectively police the border.

Our southern border is where the problem is. You're saying "tighten up the southern

border and the illegals will find another way"? Nonsense. If if was that easy, there

would be millions of illegal Africans and Asians crossing the Canadian border, but it's

not happening. Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans! Mexicans will find a way into

Canada? How do you suppose they are going to do that? And even if they

could find a way into Canada, wouldn't they just stay and work in Canada? Why

would they risk crossing *another* border if they were already home free in Canada?

We don't have to go after every single employer that hires an illegal for a day. Let's

identify the most egregious offenders and go after them first. A solution doesn't have

to be 100% perfect to be effective. In this case, 90% would be perfectly acceptable.

What makes you think it would be even 90% effective? Identifying those employers to begin with presents certain challenges related to the application of an enforcement policy. I refer again to the post on the previous page:

I ran a company that used a large Latino Workforce. We would fill in all of the forms and do everything legal. 6 to 9 moths later, we may get a letter stating the the SSN is wrong. By law, we were not allowed to 'profile' that person and say they were illegal. We would have to ask for the number again. This would go on and on.

From this it would seem that the onus is on lapses in government bureaucracy or that the employers are out there explicitly cheating the system. No doubt that happens - but if this can happen to a well-meaning employer who follows the rules you've got a bit of a mess on your hands IMO.

[Thelma nd Doni 0]

We can certainly afford it, but that doesn't matter. It will likely be money down the drain.

We have a goal, deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Unless your willing to spend 10s of billions every year, wall all borders and ports. Put everyone and everything going through the ports through intensive screening. Which will limit the freedoms of even citizens, putting a wall on the border with Mexico does very little to accomplish the goal.

Unless your wall goes all the way around, you just go around the wall. Get on a boat and get into the US. Or find a way into Canada and then down through the relatively unguarded border. If migrants are willing to risk their life crossing the desert to get into America, they will likely risk thier life finding another way in.

So, border enforcement, to stop illegal immigration will impose greatly on the freedom of citizens to travel. It will kill tourism and trade. Our economy which now largely depends on global trade will crash. Anything less wont stop illegal immigration through our borders and ports.

To really enforce laws regarding employment of illegal aliens would require a lot of money and it will likely increase the cost of doing business for both large and small businesses. Besides the task of getting several government organizations to work together. Which itself wont be an easy or cheap task.

We would have to require employers to report on everyone they hire, even if its for a job that just lasts a day. Which will increase the cost of doing business for large and small businesses and could drive some small businesses out of business.

According to the only-enforcement types on this board. It costs 10 billion a year for illegal immigrants to use public services. But if we are to get enforcement to a level where it will stop illegal immigration. It will have a direct cost of much more than that. And economic cost that could reach 100's of billions, and a police state where even citizens don't have much freedom.

I don't buy it. You're essentially saying that it's impossible to secure our border and

that is simply not true.

You don't have to limit the freedoms of U.S. citizens to effectively police the border.

Our southern border is where the problem is. You're saying "tighten up the southern

border and the illegals will find another way"? Nonsense. If if was that easy, there

would be millions of illegal Africans and Asians crossing the Canadian border, but it's

not happening. Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans! Mexicans will find a way into

Canada? How do you suppose they are going to do that? And even if they

could find a way into Canada, wouldn't they just stay and work in Canada? Why

would they risk crossing *another* border if they were already home free in Canada?

We don't have to go after every single employer that hires an illegal for a day. Let's

identify the most egregious offenders and go after them first. A solution doesn't have

to be 100% perfect to be effective. In this case, 90% would be perfectly acceptable.

What makes you think it would be even 90% effective? Identifying those employers to begin with presents certain challenges related to the application of an enforcement policy. I refer again to the post on the previous page:

I ran a company that used a large Latino Workforce. We would fill in all of the forms and do everything legal. 6 to 9 moths later, we may get a letter stating the the SSN is wrong. By law, we were not allowed to 'profile' that person and say they were illegal. We would have to ask for the number again. This would go on and on.

From this it would seem that the onus is on lapses in government bureaucracy or that the employers are out there explicitly cheating the system. No doubt that happens - but if this can happen to a well-meaning employer who follows the rules you've got a bit of a mess on your hands IMO.

Build the wall, install the technology and employe qualified enforcement personnel to monitor and arrest the criminals!

[mawilson 2,133]

What makes you think it would be even 90% effective? Identifying those employers to begin with presents certain challenges related to the application of an enforcement policy. I refer again to the post on the previous page:

SSA "no match" letters can be used as immigration enforcement tools. It's easy enough

to create employer audit triggers, such as exceeding a certain number of unmatched SSNs

submitted by a single employer, or wages earned by workers with unmatched SSNs

representing more than N per cent of payroll.

I ran a company that used a large Latino Workforce. We would fill in all of the forms and do everything legal. 6 to 9 moths later, we may get a letter stating the the SSN is wrong. By law, we were not allowed to 'profile' that person and say they were illegal. We would have to ask for the number again. This would go on and on.

From this it would seem that the onus is on lapses in government bureaucracy or that the employers are out there explicitly cheating the system. No doubt that happens - but if this can happen to a well-meaning employer who follows the rules you've got a bit of a mess on your hands IMO.

"The law" is obviously flawed and should be changed. No-match letters and audit triggers

should become part of a coherent immigration enforcement effort. Employers should

be allowed (required, in fact) to take adverse actions against any employee who is

identified in a no-match letter, unless the employee can produce valid immigration

documents within, say, 14 days.

[Caladan 19]

That's perhaps not a bad start, but how do you prevent the employer from avoiding the audit trail by simply failing to ask for a SSN? What, in other words, prevents them from going underground completely, especially with seasonal work?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We can certainly afford it, but that doesn't matter. It will likely be money down the drain.

We have a goal, deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Unless your willing to spend 10s of billions every year, wall all borders and ports. Put everyone and everything going through the ports through intensive screening. Which will limit the freedoms of even citizens, putting a wall on the border with Mexico does very little to accomplish the goal.

Unless your wall goes all the way around, you just go around the wall. Get on a boat and get into the US. Or find a way into Canada and then down through the relatively unguarded border. If migrants are willing to risk their life crossing the desert to get into America, they will likely risk thier life finding another way in.

So, border enforcement, to stop illegal immigration will impose greatly on the freedom of citizens to travel. It will kill tourism and trade. Our economy which now largely depends on global trade will crash. Anything less wont stop illegal immigration through our borders and ports.

To really enforce laws regarding employment of illegal aliens would require a lot of money and it will likely increase the cost of doing business for both large and small businesses. Besides the task of getting several government organizations to work together. Which itself wont be an easy or cheap task.

We would have to require employers to report on everyone they hire, even if its for a job that just lasts a day. Which will increase the cost of doing business for large and small businesses and could drive some small businesses out of business.

According to the only-enforcement types on this board. It costs 10 billion a year for illegal immigrants to use public services. But if we are to get enforcement to a level where it will stop illegal immigration. It will have a direct cost of much more than that. And economic cost that could reach 100's of billions, and a police state where even citizens don't have much freedom.

I don't buy it. You're essentially saying that it's impossible to secure our border and

that is simply not true.

You don't have to limit the freedoms of U.S. citizens to effectively police the border.

Our southern border is where the problem is. You're saying "tighten up the southern

border and the illegals will find another way"? Nonsense. If if was that easy, there

would be millions of illegal Africans and Asians crossing the Canadian border, but it's

not happening. Most illegal immigrants are Mexicans! Mexicans will find a way into

Canada? How do you suppose they are going to do that? And even if they

could find a way into Canada, wouldn't they just stay and work in Canada? Why

would they risk crossing *another* border if they were already home free in Canada?

We don't have to go after every single employer that hires an illegal for a day. Let's

identify the most egregious offenders and go after them first. A solution doesn't have

to be 100% perfect to be effective. In this case, 90% would be perfectly acceptable.

What makes you think it would be even 90% effective? Identifying those employers to begin with presents certain challenges related to the application of an enforcement policy. I refer again to the post on the previous page:

I ran a company that used a large Latino Workforce. We would fill in all of the forms and do everything legal. 6 to 9 moths later, we may get a letter stating the the SSN is wrong. By law, we were not allowed to 'profile' that person and say they were illegal. We would have to ask for the number again. This would go on and on.

From this it would seem that the onus is on lapses in government bureaucracy or that the employers are out there explicitly cheating the system. No doubt that happens - but if this can happen to a well-meaning employer who follows the rules you've got a bit of a mess on your hands IMO.

Build the wall, install the technology and employe qualified enforcement personnel to monitor and arrest the criminals!

Which doesn't address those illegals inside.

What makes you think it would be even 90% effective? Identifying those employers to begin with presents certain challenges related to the application of an enforcement policy. I refer again to the post on the previous page:

SSA "no match" letters can be used as immigration enforcement tools. It's easy enough

to create employer audit triggers, such as exceeding a certain number of unmatched SSNs

submitted by a single employer, or wages earned by workers with unmatched SSNs

representing more than N per cent of payroll.

I ran a company that used a large Latino Workforce. We would fill in all of the forms and do everything legal. 6 to 9 moths later, we may get a letter stating the the SSN is wrong. By law, we were not allowed to 'profile' that person and say they were illegal. We would have to ask for the number again. This would go on and on.

From this it would seem that the onus is on lapses in government bureaucracy or that the employers are out there explicitly cheating the system. No doubt that happens - but if this can happen to a well-meaning employer who follows the rules you've got a bit of a mess on your hands IMO.

"The law" is obviously flawed and should be changed. No-match letters and audit triggers

should become part of a coherent immigration enforcement effort. Employers should

be allowed (required, in fact) to take adverse actions against any employee who is

identified in a no-match letter, unless the employee can produce valid immigration

documents within, say, 14 days.

Its worth a go - but I think it will be a long time yet before we get a satisfactory resolution to this issue. I doubt anyone will try again until next year now - likely it will be a big campaigning issue.