The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
I think the restrooms in DC got pretty full during and after Trump's speech. Democrats still today have no idea what the hell happened last night.
One small note, though... People who overstay their visas (people who were vetted and allowed in, but stayed here even after their visa expired) are the exception. They are nevertheless subject to deportation, but overstaying a visa is a civil infraction, not a criminal infraction.
jujubeans
OVM Project Manager
You're correct good sir...always have that problem when I'm on the cell phone and it's corrected now!
And on that very note, Vox Media has a piece where they go on and on about the "well, yeah, duh!" reality of skilled, merit based immigration, and then falsely creates two different camps (that want the same thing for the same reasons), of one camp that encourages highly educated or skilled workers, and the other camp that discourages low educated or skilled workers. They are the exact same thing, and for the exact same reasons. But they create these two camps, place Trump's administration into the second camp, and then proceed to alarm the readers as to why that's a bad thing. It's hilarious.
It's basically a long rant on how unfair it is to not have an immigration policy based on the feel-good principles of reuniting famileeees, because, you know... chiiiildren.
I've written about this before here, but our current immigration policy is just nuts. The Vox piece says it's the US tradition, but that's only because Uncle Teddy made it the tradition with his 1965 Immigration Act. Before that, just because you had a relative in the US who was a US citizen, you weren't guaranteed squat. That even included marrying a US citizen. Just because you married a US citizen didn't in any way affect whether or not you could be a US citizen. The way it is now, if you're the third cousin of someone who knows a US citizen, you're golden.
And yes, assimilation into the values and culture of the country is important (much to the chagrin of the multiculturalism advocates). Before Uncle Teddy opened the floodgates, we still had plenty of immigrants, from all over the world, but they were in smaller, more manageable numbers, paced in such a manner as to allow immigrants to learn the language, customs and values of America. Nowadays, immigrants come over in such numbers, and live and work as neighbors with each other, keeping their own cultural values in tact, that there's little or no reason to learn a new language, culture or values.
The result is what we have today - stark cultural divisions without a common cultural connection.
CNN picked up this story and ran with it, because, you know, ... Trump.
The entire story consists of Juan Garcia Mosqueda's very one-sided (and factually-lite) account of the incident here he was detained and then deported back to his native Argentina. The poor, poor man, who owns an art gallery in NYC, implores everyone (at least his American friends) reading his Instagram post to, you know, be outraged about it, and contact their congressmen and urge them to enact immigration reform (presumably reforms that would allow essentially open and unfettered immigration). "Push for a system that does not alienate, intimidate, and bully foreigners but that, on the contrary, welcomes and encourages citizens from all countries to want to keep investing in and contributing to your wonderful country."
He says he was held for 14 hours without access to legal counsel. He was allegedly ushered by <gasp!> armed officers onto a return flight to Buenos Aires later in the day. He writes, "During the following fourteen excruciatingly painful hours, I was prohibited from the use of any means of communication and had no access to any of my belongings, which were ferociously examined without any warrant whatsoever. I was deprived of food. I was frisked three times in order to go to the bathroom, where I had no privacy and was under the constant surveillance of an officer."
I can't help it, but I have to wonder just how excruciatingly painful his detention might have been. Did they push bamboo underneath his fingernails? Waterboard him? Make him watch Fox News?
Despite not having access to his belongings, he was able to determine they were "ferociously" examined. And, shockingly, CBP examined his belongings without a warrant! How dare they!
He also complains that he was held without access to legal counsel, as if he's supposed to have that right or something. "The border patrol officer denied me the right to legal counselling, arrogantly claiming that lawyers had no jurisdiction at the border." Arrogant or not, the officer is correct. Only US citizens have the right to legal counsel if detained at airports and other ports of entry. Non-US citizens, even Green Card holders, do not have that right (unless the questioning moved beyond immigration status and questions that determine admissibility). One reason is, most immigration matters are civil in nature, not criminal, therefor you don't get the right to legal counsel. The mere unlawful presence in the US by an alien (undocumented) is a civil matter, not criminal. It only becomes criminal (a federal felony) if you re-enter illegally after being previously deported, or, it is a criminal misdemeanor if you evaded or eluded examination or inspection by immigration officer, enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or if you enter or attempt to enter by giving false or misleading information. Misdemeanor is 6 months in jail, the felony is 2 years in jail, plus civil and criminal fines.
What is most glaring in his account is the lack of information, not only about his legal status, but about why he was denied entry. He said he's been legally residing in the US for 10 years, but didn't say that he has a Green Card, which you kinda figure he'd say so if he did. Even if he has a Green Card, they expire after 10 years (or after 180 days of being out of the country) and you have to renew them. I suspect he was just living here on an expired visa.
In subsequent posts on his Instagram account, he says he is unable to talk to the media about it or make further posts about it until he gets his legal issues resolved regarding readmission to the US. People who claim to know him have posted things like, "I told you so. You can't just keep renewing a tourist visa forever." Apparently, he'd get his visa, come here for 2-3 months, go back home (or wherever) for months at a time, then get another visa. Lather. Rinse, Repeat.
But none of the details or background matters, as long as the story makes Trump look like a bully going after this business owner.
The entire story consists of Juan Garcia Mosqueda's very one-sided (and factually-lite) account of the incident here he was detained and then deported back to his native Argentina. The poor, poor man, who owns an art gallery in NYC, implores everyone (at least his American friends) reading his Instagram post to, you know, be outraged about it, and contact their congressmen and urge them to enact immigration reform (presumably reforms that would allow essentially open and unfettered immigration). "Push for a system that does not alienate, intimidate, and bully foreigners but that, on the contrary, welcomes and encourages citizens from all countries to want to keep investing in and contributing to your wonderful country."
He says he was held for 14 hours without access to legal counsel. He was allegedly ushered by <gasp!> armed officers onto a return flight to Buenos Aires later in the day. He writes, "During the following fourteen excruciatingly painful hours, I was prohibited from the use of any means of communication and had no access to any of my belongings, which were ferociously examined without any warrant whatsoever. I was deprived of food. I was frisked three times in order to go to the bathroom, where I had no privacy and was under the constant surveillance of an officer."
I can't help it, but I have to wonder just how excruciatingly painful his detention might have been. Did they push bamboo underneath his fingernails? Waterboard him? Make him watch Fox News?
Despite not having access to his belongings, he was able to determine they were "ferociously" examined. And, shockingly, CBP examined his belongings without a warrant! How dare they!
He also complains that he was held without access to legal counsel, as if he's supposed to have that right or something. "The border patrol officer denied me the right to legal counselling, arrogantly claiming that lawyers had no jurisdiction at the border." Arrogant or not, the officer is correct. Only US citizens have the right to legal counsel if detained at airports and other ports of entry. Non-US citizens, even Green Card holders, do not have that right (unless the questioning moved beyond immigration status and questions that determine admissibility). One reason is, most immigration matters are civil in nature, not criminal, therefor you don't get the right to legal counsel. The mere unlawful presence in the US by an alien (undocumented) is a civil matter, not criminal. It only becomes criminal (a federal felony) if you re-enter illegally after being previously deported, or, it is a criminal misdemeanor if you evaded or eluded examination or inspection by immigration officer, enter or attempt to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or if you enter or attempt to enter by giving false or misleading information. Misdemeanor is 6 months in jail, the felony is 2 years in jail, plus civil and criminal fines.
What is most glaring in his account is the lack of information, not only about his legal status, but about why he was denied entry. He said he's been legally residing in the US for 10 years, but didn't say that he has a Green Card, which you kinda figure he'd say so if he did. Even if he has a Green Card, they expire after 10 years (or after 180 days of being out of the country) and you have to renew them. I suspect he was just living here on an expired visa.
In subsequent posts on his Instagram account, he says he is unable to talk to the media about it or make further posts about it until he gets his legal issues resolved regarding readmission to the US. People who claim to know him have posted things like, "I told you so. You can't just keep renewing a tourist visa forever." Apparently, he'd get his visa, come here for 2-3 months, go back home (or wherever) for months at a time, then get another visa. Lather. Rinse, Repeat.
But none of the details or background matters, as long as the story makes Trump look like a bully going after this business owner.
Here's an interesting piece from the NYT about how Trump's merit-based immigration might work. It's interesting because of the surprising numbers (although not that surprising), and because the author of the piece, Julie Hirschfeld Davis, hasn't quite yet figured out how to craft it so that it puts Trump in the most negative light (although she does take a stab at it).
One interesting bit is, "A vast majority of immigrants admitted to the United States are granted entry [both Green Cards and visas] based on their family ties. Less than one-fifth [that's less than 20%] are admitted through job-based preferences..."
It goes on to note that in 2014, of more than one million legal permanent residents admitted (Green Card holders that were given permanent residency status right up front), only 15% received an employment-based preference, 5% were admitted through the "diversity lottery" (a program that awards permanent residency to people from countries with low rates of immigration to the US), 13% came in with refugee or asylum status, and a whopping 64% were either immediate family members of US citizens or Green Card holders, or sponsored by US citizens or Green Card holders.
I think the diversity lottery is a good thing, but only when combined with a merit-based immigration policy. The 5% of the diversity lottery, and the 13% of the refugee and a asylum seekers, that's about 18% of immigrants who may or may not have any discernible skills or education, nor are the required to have them, but that's a number we can deal with as a nation, assuming the overwhelming remaining number of immigrants are skills and education based.
I don't think merit-based necessarily means highly skilled and/or highly educated, which is what the opponents of merit-based immigration believe. A merit can also be a farm worker (which is harder and more skilled than most people believe), and restaurant workers, hotel maids, whatever they want to do, if the US has a need to fill those jobs. It comes down to, "What can you do that a US citizen can't do, or won't do?" If that's harvesting tomatoes, so be it.
But one point she (tries) to make in support of the opposition of merit-based immigration, and it's kinda funny, is "The number of family-based immigrants who enter the United States each year is a tiny fraction of the total work force, and there is no guarantee that reducing the number of those immigrants or substituting people with better education and skills would increase either wages or employment opportunity."
Well, duh. The reason the number of family-based immigrants is a tiny fraction of the total work force is because they don't work, got in because they have family here, and generally have no discernible skills or education and can't speak the language well enough to obtain either. If they got in on merits, they'd be working and would be a significantly larger fraction of the total work force.
I think if you can get in on your merits, and you can establish that you can support yourself and your family, then there's no reason to prevent you from later bringing in family members. But that doesn't mean mom and dad and grandma and grandpa and all your siblings, just so we can reunite the family you chose to leave behind. If you miss your family that much, you know where they are.
Anyway, it's an interesting article.
One interesting bit is, "A vast majority of immigrants admitted to the United States are granted entry [both Green Cards and visas] based on their family ties. Less than one-fifth [that's less than 20%] are admitted through job-based preferences..."
It goes on to note that in 2014, of more than one million legal permanent residents admitted (Green Card holders that were given permanent residency status right up front), only 15% received an employment-based preference, 5% were admitted through the "diversity lottery" (a program that awards permanent residency to people from countries with low rates of immigration to the US), 13% came in with refugee or asylum status, and a whopping 64% were either immediate family members of US citizens or Green Card holders, or sponsored by US citizens or Green Card holders.
I think the diversity lottery is a good thing, but only when combined with a merit-based immigration policy. The 5% of the diversity lottery, and the 13% of the refugee and a asylum seekers, that's about 18% of immigrants who may or may not have any discernible skills or education, nor are the required to have them, but that's a number we can deal with as a nation, assuming the overwhelming remaining number of immigrants are skills and education based.
I don't think merit-based necessarily means highly skilled and/or highly educated, which is what the opponents of merit-based immigration believe. A merit can also be a farm worker (which is harder and more skilled than most people believe), and restaurant workers, hotel maids, whatever they want to do, if the US has a need to fill those jobs. It comes down to, "What can you do that a US citizen can't do, or won't do?" If that's harvesting tomatoes, so be it.
But one point she (tries) to make in support of the opposition of merit-based immigration, and it's kinda funny, is "The number of family-based immigrants who enter the United States each year is a tiny fraction of the total work force, and there is no guarantee that reducing the number of those immigrants or substituting people with better education and skills would increase either wages or employment opportunity."
Well, duh. The reason the number of family-based immigrants is a tiny fraction of the total work force is because they don't work, got in because they have family here, and generally have no discernible skills or education and can't speak the language well enough to obtain either. If they got in on merits, they'd be working and would be a significantly larger fraction of the total work force.
I think if you can get in on your merits, and you can establish that you can support yourself and your family, then there's no reason to prevent you from later bringing in family members. But that doesn't mean mom and dad and grandma and grandpa and all your siblings, just so we can reunite the family you chose to leave behind. If you miss your family that much, you know where they are.
Anyway, it's an interesting article.
One positive... On the day before the Inauguration, Obama's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Director, Dan Ashe, banned lead bullets and fishing weights for use in hunting and fishing on federal wildlife refuge land (that allows hunting and fishing) and any other lands where the FWS regulates hunting and fishing. Despite zero evidence for it ever happening, the ban was put in place to prevent plants and animals from being poisoned by lead left on the ground or in the water. The ban made happy tree huggers and gun control advocates, because non-lead bullets (so-called (got that from Trump hehe) Green Bullets) are more costly (50% - 100% more), as well as non-lead fishing weights. More costly ammunition means fewer people can afford the ammunition.
In 2013, California banned lead bullets, for the same theoretical but utterly unproven dangers. Governor Ferry Brown said, "There is simply no reason to continue using lead ammunition in hunting when it poses a significant risk to human health and the environment." Except it doesn't post a significant risk to either. Lead ammunition has been used since the invention of the firearm, and there are no studies that show even moderate, much less significant risks to health or environment. The number of hunters and fishermen, and the lead they expend, simply aren't sufficient to amount to more than a hill of beans. Even on military bases and in war-torn areas of the world where ammunition is strewn about the environment in copious amounts, there is no evidence of such risks.
Hunting in California has already dropped by half, and fishing licenses are down 30%.
The new Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke removed the ban on Thursday saying, "After reviewing the order and the process by which it was promulgated, I have determined that the order is not mandated by any existing statutory or regulatory requirement and was issued without significant communication, consultation or coordination with affected stakeholders. It worries me to think about hunting and fishing becoming activities for the land-owning elite. This package of secretarial orders will expand access for outdoor enthusiasts and also make sure the community's voice is heard."
Non-lead bullets and weights are available for anyone who doesn't want to use lead. They're not big sellers, though. About the only reason to not use lead ammunition is in areas where the California Condor ranges, because those birds scavenge carcass of all kinds of dead animals, including dead game shot and left in the fields. All scavenger birds and raptors including the Bald Eagle will show elevated levels of lead in their systems during hunting seasons, but unlike all the others birds that eventually (within 6 months) pass the lead through their system, the California Condor does not, and will suffer from lead poisoning.
Zinke also signed an order Thursday asking agencies within his purview to find ways to increase access to outdoor recreation on the lands they oversee. Good job!
In 2013, California banned lead bullets, for the same theoretical but utterly unproven dangers. Governor Ferry Brown said, "There is simply no reason to continue using lead ammunition in hunting when it poses a significant risk to human health and the environment." Except it doesn't post a significant risk to either. Lead ammunition has been used since the invention of the firearm, and there are no studies that show even moderate, much less significant risks to health or environment. The number of hunters and fishermen, and the lead they expend, simply aren't sufficient to amount to more than a hill of beans. Even on military bases and in war-torn areas of the world where ammunition is strewn about the environment in copious amounts, there is no evidence of such risks.
Hunting in California has already dropped by half, and fishing licenses are down 30%.
The new Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke removed the ban on Thursday saying, "After reviewing the order and the process by which it was promulgated, I have determined that the order is not mandated by any existing statutory or regulatory requirement and was issued without significant communication, consultation or coordination with affected stakeholders. It worries me to think about hunting and fishing becoming activities for the land-owning elite. This package of secretarial orders will expand access for outdoor enthusiasts and also make sure the community's voice is heard."
Non-lead bullets and weights are available for anyone who doesn't want to use lead. They're not big sellers, though. About the only reason to not use lead ammunition is in areas where the California Condor ranges, because those birds scavenge carcass of all kinds of dead animals, including dead game shot and left in the fields. All scavenger birds and raptors including the Bald Eagle will show elevated levels of lead in their systems during hunting seasons, but unlike all the others birds that eventually (within 6 months) pass the lead through their system, the California Condor does not, and will suffer from lead poisoning.
Zinke also signed an order Thursday asking agencies within his purview to find ways to increase access to outdoor recreation on the lands they oversee. Good job!
well if there were a merit system..I would never have qualified...there is already far too many van drivers in this country... Judy only qualified for Canada because she got a managerial transfer as her company was expanding into Ontario and she was helping set it up...
I was waiting for someone like you..it was just too good to pass up eh?...Your point is, lol.
You made it to easy.I was waiting for someone like you..it was just too good to pass up eh?...
jujubeans
OVM Project Manager
Today Trump will be signing the second travel ban.. hope this one takes!