The South Korean nationals that ICE arrested were already allowed to enter the country without a visa (for trips under 90 days) and perform business activities (such as overseeing construction and factory layout planning). That's not even targeting based on corruption, it's just trying to fill quotas without giving a shit about the rest of the country.
That presumes that this kind of enforcement is a net positive and I'm pretty convinced it isn't. The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is essentially arbitrary. Illegal immigration is not a crime of morality, it's basically one of economics. The legal framework theoretically is designed to produce an optimal outcome for the health and wealth of the nation and presently it is not doing that at all. We can and should welcome far more people than we do. Deporting people who are not violent and contributing to the economy because they have incorrect paperwork isn't a win for anyone but politicians and racists.
> Illegal immigration is not a crime of morality, it's basically one of economics.
Then why do you immediately shift into questions of moral judgement, and your moral judgement of how "welcoming" people should be? This politics is garbled.
New immigrants lower the leverage of domestic workers, and the leverage of previous immigrants, by intention. The myth that they move on to become mandarins that are too good for those jobs comes from people who never had to work those jobs. Black people didn't move anywhere except to even worse, less secure work.
I watched a South filled with black servants serving everyone's food and doing all the hard work, turned into a South filled with black people who have $0 worth outside of the equity in their cars, and all of that (horrible shit-)work being completely closed to them because they didn't speak a foreign language.
At the same time, especially in the north, I watched tons of terrible jobs filled by the barely English speaking Indian "relatives" of the people who opened franchises, and who kick back half of their checks to these "uncles", another quarter of that check goes back in remittances, and they get to live like kefala Emerati slaves.
It is dystopic to consider this the compassionate choice. It's purely a matter of trend following when the people who profit from this stuff also do the media work to set the trends. The "left" were against all of this in the 90s as a central principle.
Cesar Chavez gave speeches about the "wetbacks" being brought in to undercut striking workers. As a Black person born in Chicago, I was part of the Great Migration that was brought in to undercut European immigrants who were fighting for their labor rights. It doesn't make me "bad," or my family "bad." The accusation that people who object to it are demonizing immigrants is an intentional distortion and a marketing strategy for consistent hypercapitalist laissez-faire politics.
I miss when "liberals" didn't have Reagan's policies. But they're a natural consequence of their having become extraordinarily wealthy from them.
You're reading way too much into the word "welcome". I don't mean we should be more polite, just more intentional.
Data says immigration is generally good for the economy but certainly within some parameters. I don't think any data says immigrants hurt black Americans but please cite something besides your personal observation. It does seem pretty specious to blame the least powerful people in society for the downfall of the next least powerful and not the massive wealth concentration at the top. The fact that immigration is being demonized by the same crew who want to ban discussion of racism or diversity is not a coincidence.
<< The distinction between legal and illegal immigration is essentially arbitrary.
Most lines are. It is a line we agreed on as a society. Just for a quick comparison, 21 is a legal drinking age in US ( going after less incendiary example just to prove a point ). But, and here is my subtle point, either those are real lines or there are not. If they are real, they should be enforced and if they are not, they should be nulled.
<< We can and should welcome far more people than we do.
Before I offer a reflexive response, I think it is worth to task a simple question:
why?
<< Deporting people who are not violent and contributing to the economy because they have incorrect paperwork isn't a win for anyone but politicians and racists.
That is amusingly neat way oh framing it, but if it only it was that simple. I want to argue against this framework, but not before you give me an idea about how you justify the why in previous section. I struggle to understand this particular perspective.
Because without immigration, the population of the US will objectively shrink over time, and that's bad for both the country in the abstract and the personal welfare of the average middle class person as they reach old age.
Interesting, you do think the local populace is not capable of breeding? If so, can you point to the why? I might be leading you a little, but I promise only a little.
The US has a fertility rate of 1.6 (https://apnews.com/article/fertility-rate-us-low-cdc-replace...), i.e., 1.6 kids per 2 parents. Better social services and social safety nets would likely increase this some, but it would still probably be under 2, since that's the general trend for wealthy countries.
Opposite actually. Prosperity and security decrease fertility. Go look at the most developed nations is Europe and Asia and they have lower fertility than the US. America is only hanging on due to latent religious fervor (and immigration).
Interesting way to sidestep the answer, because I did not ask you what the current rate is. I asked you why you think the existing population cannot breed.
If it is social services and social safety net, then why the same does not apply to the immigrant population ( legal or illegal )? Again, I know what I am thinking, but you have to give me a little more so that I model your world perspective a little more clearly.
Most crimes are not arbitrary. Anything that causes or risks injury or loss of property make up that vast majority of crimes. Drinking age or driving age are proxies for public safety. Those lines are already fuzzy and breaching them is not a major offense.
We haven't had a serious discussion about actual immigration policy for a while and a lot of agreed upon rules are being tossed out. Trump's enforcement includes summary dissolution of refugee status, summary revocation of visas and green cards, arrests at court houses and a general disregard for due process. There is a big headline strategic objective of fighting crime and the current enforcement is not even pretending that this is a serious goal.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Zero disagreement on the need to have that discussion. I am certainly not, lets say ecstatic, about how the current environment shapes up. Unfortunately for me, I don't have the capacity to influence it in any serious way. I am basically a spectator.