Jihadin wrote:
Why I think we need a do over in Government. I rather have progress then deadlock debate

squidhills wrote:
Y'know it's kinda funny, all these people banging on about how we need to seal the border... the reason we have an illegal immigrant population in this country is *because* we closed the border in the 1970s.

Before that, the term for what we call "illegal immigrants" was "migrant worker". Migrant. As in migratory. They used to come north accross the border to do manual labor on farms during the harvest seasons, and then they would return to Mexico with their money during the off-season. Once the borders were closed, it made movement accross them much more difficult, making it less certain that a worker who came north to the US would be able to do so again if he left at the end of the work season.

So they stayed.

Then, when they got sick of working up here by themselves, they used the money they had made (which they used to take down to Mexico) to send for their families and bring them into the US (also via illegal channels).

Which is how we arrived at the current problem. Now, given the very real security situation we have here, with legitimate concerns about terrorists and cartels coming accross the border, we can't just re-open everything and expect the problem to resolve itself. That won't happen. But it is worth noting that the reason we have this problem is because we spent the 1970s doing what people today say we should do: close the border.

 Frazzled wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Y'know it's kinda funny, all these people banging on about how we need to seal the border... the reason we have an illegal immigrant population in this country is *because* we closed the border in the 1970s.

Before that, the term for what we call "illegal immigrants" was "migrant worker". Migrant. As in migratory. They used to come north accross the border to do manual labor on farms during the harvest seasons, and then they would return to Mexico with their money during the off-season. Once the borders were closed, it made movement accross them much more difficult, making it less certain that a worker who came north to the US would be able to do so again if he left at the end of the work season.

So they stayed.

Then, when they got sick of working up here by themselves, they used the money they had made (which they used to take down to Mexico) to send for their families and bring them into the US (also via illegal channels).

Which is how we arrived at the current problem. Now, given the very real security situation we have here, with legitimate concerns about terrorists and cartels coming accross the border, we can't just re-open everything and expect the problem to resolve itself. That won't happen. But it is worth noting that the reason we have this problem is because we spent the 1970s doing what people today say we should do: close the border.

Horsepoop. There's no hindrance to leaving.

 Frazzled wrote:

squidhills wrote:
Y'know it's kinda funny, all these people banging on about how we need to seal the border... the reason we have an illegal immigrant population in this country is *because* we closed the border in the 1970s.

Before that, the term for what we call "illegal immigrants" was "migrant worker". Migrant. As in migratory. They used to come north accross the border to do manual labor on farms during the harvest seasons, and then they would return to Mexico with their money during the off-season. Once the borders were closed, it made movement accross them much more difficult, making it less certain that a worker who came north to the US would be able to do so again if he left at the end of the work season.

So they stayed.

Then, when they got sick of working up here by themselves, they used the money they had made (which they used to take down to Mexico) to send for their families and bring them into the US (also via illegal channels).

Which is how we arrived at the current problem. Now, given the very real security situation we have here, with legitimate concerns about terrorists and cartels coming accross the border, we can't just re-open everything and expect the problem to resolve itself. That won't happen. But it is worth noting that the reason we have this problem is because we spent the 1970s doing what people today say we should do: close the border.

Horsepoop. There's no hindrance to leaving.

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.

Matter of Arrabelly Yerabelly
Advance Parole

 Jihadin wrote:
Negative. He is counting the Illegal Aliens being turned back at the border to claim high numbers.

Forgot to add Advance Parole to the other two

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.

edited

squidhills wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.

Matter of Arrabelly Yerabelly
Advance Parole

As others have pointed out, the levels of illegal immigration have been going down over the last few years. It's hard to blame Obama for a problem that started decades before he took office, and which has been declining since he took office.

 Jihadin wrote:
Since I am attach to USCIS I cannot give out certain info

 Jihadin wrote:
Forms to fill out. If one is apprehended in the US. On drunk driving charges or whatever criminal charges. His/her legal adviser will have them fill out documentation to prevent deportation. I cannot give the forms

 Jihadin wrote:

squidhills wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.

Matter of Arrabelly Yerabelly
Advance Parole

As others have pointed out, the levels of illegal immigration have been going down over the last few years. It's hard to blame Obama for a problem that started decades before he took office, and which has been declining since he took office.

Since Squid quoted me. Look those two up

Since I am attach to USCIS I cannot give out certain info. Those two topics will guide you a bit further into the situation. Unless no one looking them up eh

 Easy E wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.

edited

Psssst. Your partisanship is showing again. It's a bit unseemly and make syou look easy. Just thought you should know.

For years, U.S.C.I.S. officials have taken the position that a departure under a grant of advance parole is a departure for purposes of Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II), two bars which do not allow a non-citizen to apply for re-admission into the United States for three or ten years, respectively. However, in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I & N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that a non-citizen who departs the United States on a grant of advance parole does not trigger the three and ten year bars for purposes of INA §§ 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II). In its decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals notes that advance parole is a distinct discretionary benefit for which “the alien must demonstrate his eligibility and worthiness.” 25 I & N Dec. 771, 778 (BIA 2012).

The January 12, 2007 USCIS memo states th
at USCIS can decide an adjustment
application of a parolee with
a final order under these inte
rim regulations. This is a
correct statement, for the following reasons:
•
Under the amended jurisdictional provisi
ons of the interim regulations, USCIS
has been given jurisdiction over th
e adjustment applications of
all
arriving aliens
regardless of whether they are in rem
oval proceedings, with a limited exception
for certain advance paro
lees not relevant to this practice advisory.
6
•
Specifically, the amended regulations gran
t USCIS “jurisdiction to adjudicate an
application for adjustment of status f
iled by any alien, unless the immigration
judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate
the application under 8 C.F.R. §
1245.2(a)(1).” 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1). Th
e regulations strip an immigration
judge of jurisdiction over the adjustment
application of an “arriving alien” in
proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1). Cons
equently, since the immigration judge
does not have jurisdiction over such applications, USCIS does, in accord with this
regulation.
See also
92 Fed. Reg. at 27587 (explaining
that one purpose of the
amendments to the regulations is to ma
ke clear that USCIS has jurisdiction over
the adjustment applications of “arriving aliens” in proceedings).
•
The interim regulations do not define
whether a noncitizen remains “in
proceedings” while under an unexecuted final order of removal.
7
Either way it is
6
An immigration judge has jurisdiction over
the adjustment applications of certain
advance parolees in removal proceedings who
are returning to complete previously filed
adjustment applications.
See
8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii)(A)-(D).
7
However,
see
8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(9)(ii) defining
when proceedings terminate for
purposes of an alien seeking adjustment based upon a marriage that occurred while the
individual was “in proceedings.” Under
this regulation, an
individual would be
considered to remain “in proceedings” while unde
are an unexecuted final order of removal.

a. An H-1 temporary worker, or H-4 spouse or child of an H-1
;
b. An L-1 intracompany transferee, or L-2 spouse or child of an L-1;
c. A K-3 spouse, or K-4 child of a U.S. citizen;
or
d. A V-1 spouse, or V-2/V-3 child of a lawful permanent resident

 sebster wrote:
So the internet is starting to fill up with stories about David Brat, the guy who beat Cantor. Turns out he's kind of an interesting guy, in that way that the economics profession somehow keeps producing 'interesting'. ie He's a nut, but he's a nut that puts up arguments that are well thought through, insightful, and only really nutty because they start from completely flying rodent gak opening positions.

In this case the flying rodent gak opening position is that he has a problem with the basic starting assumption of economics, and uses that to condemn the whole of the field. You see, economics starts with an assumption of maximising utility, that the best result is the one that produces the most overall material benefit to society as a whole. From there, to make a long story very, very short, the field overall concludes some form of mostly free market with some regulation to overcome specific market problems is the best way to achieve that goal.

Brat disputes that opening position. He says that the utilitarian assumption is a moral assumption, and produces only the result that utilitarian's would think is the best. He says he isn't a Randian, but it's his go to for suggesting other value models. But the thing is, even ignoring that almost all decision making that isn't self-motivated is utilitarian, it's also the only quantifiable form. That is, we can measure how many cans of beans are produced and consumed, we can't actually measure how much liberty was enjoyed by people in choosing their favourite kinds of bean.

What he's doing is basically like someone who argues that 40K really needs to start questioning whether it needs dice rolling.

What makes it all the more interesting is that he actually focuses a lot on talking about ethics, and the role of ethics in building prosperous economies. I think that's actually a viewpoint that economics needs. It's just that I strongly suspect his particular view on ethics is going to revolve a lot around saying 'freedom' a lot, which is actually not very useful at all.



http://www.vox.com/2014/6/10/5798708/brat-academic-research
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/06/11/david_brat_thinks_economics_is_a_sham.html

 motyak wrote:
"The world could be hit by an asteroid, and all life extinguished. If the Christian church powers up politically, we can stop it."

Elect me. I am anticipating a possible future

 dæl wrote:
Why is that WSJ article making a big thing about quoting him that the government "holds a monopoly on violence". Its not like that is a fringe view that he is the first person to express, its literally the first thing you learn if you take a class in politics.