
Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest [pdf] - saycheese
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Enforcement-of-the-Immigration-Laws-to-Serve-the-National-Interest.pdf
======
mpweiher
Oh my god.

So how about updating those laws? For example, an H1B who is fired has to
leave the country by next day. This has always been ridiculous because:
impossible. It wasn't enforced, so people could get new jobs or prepare
properly for leaving.

I also hear from people who have gone through the green card process as adults
that it is actually not possible to go through that process while remaining
legal.

The craziness that is US immigration law (and pretty much anything having to
do with _damn foreigners_ ) was only kept at bay by discretion, which is now
removed.

Did I already say "Oh my god"?

~~~
tacostakohashi
Not true - there is in fact a 60 day grace period for people in H1-B status,
which can be used to find a new job, or between jobs.

[https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-27540/p-217](https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-27540/p-217)

~~~
mpweiher
Yes. From the directive that's being talked about:

"all existing conflicting directives, memoranda, or field guidance regarding
the enforcement of our immigration laws and priorities for removal are hereby
immediately rescinded"

To me, what you referred to is exactly one of those "conflicting directives"
that has now been rescinded, but I most certainly could be completely wrong
about that.

~~~
leereeves
Do "directive", "memoranda", and "field guidance" have specific legal meanings
in this context? Would that include a "final rule"?

I think that statement must have limited scope because this six page memo
could hardly replace the entire rulebook.

------
trome
In reading this, I see that there will no longer be any groups that are
allowed to remain in the US based on prosecutor discretion (eg: Dreamers,
kids/babies who were raised here will be deported), 10,000 more officers will
be hired, and they plan to deputize more local police departments to deport
people without Customs & Border Protection involvement.

About the only major screwup here for effective mass deportations is the Trump
administration is hiring too few people to round up these people. Back in the
1940s when we were rounding up Japanese to send to concentration camps, it
took way more manpower to effectively round up that population to send them to
squalid, disease filled camps we sent them to, and there weren't 6 million to
be rounded up either.

Hopefully this will get more Americans politically active at the very least,
as when the food is rotting in the fields due to a lack of farm hands, that is
when we will see something similar to what is happening with Obamacare and
Republican voters right now.

~~~
thraway2016
> Hopefully this will get more Americans politically active at the very least

FWIW, many of us became politically active for the first time in our lives
_specifically because of_ the candidacy of DJT and the promises he made to
deal with this issue.

A couple questions for HN, that I've yet to see answered without appeal to
emotion:

1\. By what moral principle do noncitizens have the right to reside in a
sovereign country?

2\. What is so morally outrageous about a sovereign country choosing to reduce
its non-citizen : citizen ratio?

~~~
literallycancer
By what moral principle are citizens valued more than non-citizens?

~~~
thraway2016
There are many answers to this question, that have been rehashed elsewhere.
Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in the
future of their lands than noncitizens, to the protection of shared cultural
heritage, to social cohesion borne of cultural integration and higher-trust
societies, etc.

But I'm genuinely interested in answers to my questions devoid of appeal to
emotion, not deflection to other questions.

~~~
literallycancer
> Everything from citizens having more vested interest (skin in the game) in
> the future of their lands than noncitizens

An illegal immigrant from a poor country sells everything, and by a stroke of
luck is successful in coming to the US. Then they spend some time there (say
15 years).

Surely they have more to lose than a legal qualified immigrant (now a citizen)
that spent some 8 years jumping through the hoops? The qualified immigrant
could just pick a country at random and have reasonable chance of starting
over, while the minimum wage illegal can't do the same (and so has to hope the
country doesn't crap itself).

>protection of shared cultural heritage

How much cultural heritage does a white protestant factory worker share with
an illegal Chinese immigrant?

Is it more or less than they share with legal Chinese programmer who had
recently been granted a citizenship?

------
tempodox
> Department personnel should prioritize removable aliens who: ... (2) have
> been charged with any criminal offense that has not been resolved; ... (7)
> in the judgment of an immigration officer, otheiwise pose a risk to public
> safety or national security.

So, if they accuse you wrongfully, or are just having a bad hair day, you're
out.

Having the opportunity for arbitrary abuse of power is a magnet for every
nobody longing to be somebody. The Department of Humiliation Services will be
home to all sorts of creeps.

~~~
leereeves
Does that mean that a legal resident can be removed merely for being charged
with a crime, or does it only apply to illegal residents (who can legally be
removed regardless).

~~~
pragone
It does state `removable aliens`, which I would assume would not include a
legal resident or nonresident alien. I initially read it as applying to all
aliens, regardless of status.

------
pragone
IANAL, but this part seems incredibly open-ended - does anyone know if this is
standard? Namely, I'm referring to parts 2, 3, 5, and 6, of which 2 and 3 seem
to contradict the idea of "innocent until proven guilty", though I don't know
how that applies to non-citizens, and 5 and 6 which seem extremely open to
interpretation.

> Additionally, regardless of the basis of removability, Department personnel
> should prioritize removable aliens who: (I) have been convicted of any
> criminal offense; (2) have been charged with any criminal offense that has
> not been resolved; (3) have committed acts which constitute a chargeable
> criminal offense; ( 4) have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in
> connection with any official matter before a governmental agency; (5) have
> abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (6) are subject to
> a final order of removal but have not complied with their legal obligation
> to depart the United States; or (7) in the judgment of an immigration
> officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

~~~
pharrlax
(3) is inviting abuse of due process

~~~
matwood
I believe deportation is a civil offense [1], and is thus not under the same
due process constraints of a criminal offense.

[1] [http://stopdeportationsnow.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-
immigrati...](http://stopdeportationsnow.blogspot.com/2011/08/is-immigration-
law-civil-or-criminal.html)

------
coldcode
Good luck identifying and transporting 10-20 million people with due process
while simultaneously not destroying the businesses that employ them,
accidentally deporting citizens, and doing it outside the vision of cameras
and youtube who will record thousands of frightened people behind razor wire
or packed like sardines in railroad cars. 5-10% of the working population in
this country are likely illegals generally working jobs no one else wants for
low (and often illegal) pay. Who is going to build a 2000mi wall in Texas in
the summer for minimum wage? Certainly no one reading HN.

~~~
mc32
There is no reason we can't institute work visas like other countries do.
Regulate it, have it be based on need and expand it to all applicable
countries, not just neighbors.

------
TuringNYC
I suspect illegal immigration populations will not go down much -- _however_
\-- open employers of illegal immigrants (farms, cleaning companies,
construction companies) will simply further abuse illegal immigrants and
threaten them with deportation for the slightest of slights.

~~~
vaishaksuresh
and potentially opening up ways to force people into slavery. For all the
rounding-up, shouldn't there be punishments for people who employ undocumented
immigrants?

~~~
TuringNYC
Totally agree. A sincere effort to stop illegal immigration would include
penalties for the employers as well. Which is why the current EO seems
disingenuous and more apt to intimidate+oppress rather than actually address
all the root causes of illegal immigration.

------
matwood
Obama deported a lot of people and Trump is further expanding the
deportations. The problem here is that we need immigration reform, not that we
need to stop deporting people who have over stayed visas etc...

Immigrants are self selecting people who want to have a better life. Why the
US cannot figure out how to streamline legal immigration has been a failure of
the US government for many years. Instead of 10k more officers to implement
deportations, a better use of money would have been to use those people to
improve/speed up the immigration process.

~~~
thraway2016
> Immigrants are self selecting people who want to have a better life.

Being a developer/scientist/entrepreneur whose primary exposure to immigrants
is of high-IQ, high-agency, personable people similar to ourselves, it's easy
to allow anecdote to obscure the facts.

The facts are that immigrants - both legal and illegal - are far more likely
than natives to parasitize the social services of their host country:

[http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-
illegals...](http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-
illegals-f1.png) [http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-
illegals...](http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/camarota-welfare-
illegals-f2.png)

~~~
matwood
The problem is that study in particular is very poorly done. I'll be
charitable and say they did not do it on purpose:
[https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-
exagger...](https://www.cato.org/blog/center-immigration-studies-exaggerates-
immigrant-welfare-use)

 _The interesting question is not whether poor people use more welfare than
rich people but whether poor immigrants are more likely to use more welfare
than poor natives. Our research found that poor immigrants are less likely to
use welfare than poor natives. The CIS report isn’t very useful because it
doesn’t correct for this._

~~~
yummyfajitas
That would be an interesting question if we were answering the purely academic
question of "who's a better human being, immigrants or natives?"

I fully agree that on average, the American underclass is terrible and most
immigrants are better people. As evidence of this, witness all the left wing
types who seem to believe that the American underclass would rather sit around
on welfare than do the work that illegal immigrants will no longer be doing.

But that's not the question we're asking. The question we're asking is whether
a new immigrant - a person we have the choice of accepting or rejecting - will
be a benefit to society or a parasite upon it? Many natives suck, but we're
stuck with them. Does that mean we are forever obligated to import more people
who suck only slightly less?

(For the record, I think the best solution is to end the welfare state and
open our borders. I'm just arguing with bad reasoning.)

~~~
hsod
> witness all the left wing types who seem to believe that the American
> underclass would rather sit around on welfare than do the work that illegal
> immigrants will no longer be doing.

What? Isn't the "welfare queen" a right-wing talking point?

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's a common left wing talking point too: we need to import more Mexicans
because "they do jobs that Americans just won't do". See the comment just
above mine, for instance. This talking point is correct and I can back it up
with Census and BLS stats if you like.

Admittedly, it's only right wingers who bring that talking point up when
discussing welfare.

------
andyjohnson0
Nice catch-all in the fifth paragraph:

 _" Additionally, regardless of the basis of removability, Department
personnel should prioritize removable aliens who: [...] or (7) in the judgment
of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national
security."_

~~~
ranko
"Public safety" is surely too important to be left to the judgment of an
individual. Why not create a Committee of Public Safety
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Public_Safety))
to make these determinations? What could possibly go wrong?

------
JoeAltmaier
Lots of speculation about food prices etc. America has enough food to feed the
world; Iowa grows enough to feed 2 United States. We'll not suffer.

That said, if we're going to have a roundup I hope it targets the biggest
illegal alien demographic - middle European males overstaying their school
visa. Just to be fair, you know, the white males that are the bulk of the
problem should not be overlooked.

~~~
wiredfool
Iowa can feed the country, so long as you're fine with eating field corn and
unprocessed soy, with a little pork on the side.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Iowa produces half the nation's pork. Billions of kilos. And corn is used in
endless food products, like it or not.

~~~
wiredfool
Right. That corn is feedstock for making food/ethanol. It's not corn as you
would eat.

Saying that Iowa covers the food problem is a little like saying that we've
got transportation covered because there are railroads that move tons of
stuff.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its all corn you can eat. Just not as Green Giant Niblets in a can. Much is
converted to starch, sugar, protein etc. and used in food manufacture.

Sure lots is used for feedstock and ethanol now; because its available and
cheap.

------
mabbo
For someone with Trump's wealth, a doubling of all food prices won't mean
much, but for the rest of the country that's going to have an enormous
economic impact.

I get that these farm workers are technically breaking the law, but they're
laws that have been knowingly not enforced for decades.

I honestly think the economic shock of this is going to cause another
recession.

~~~
dukeluke
I think you're ignoring the effect this will have on lower class wages.
Millions of people will replace those jobs taken by illegal immigrants, most
of whom were working below minimum wage. That will tighten the labor pool of
lower class jobs, and may lead to wage increases for the poorest in the
country.

~~~
megous
By the same logic you may try to destroy some capital (machines in factories,
etc.). That would also place increased demand on labor.

The point is that reduction of capital or labor (in this case) does not cause
increase in prosperity overall.

It does not add anything to the economy, it just takes away.

Even in recession, if you're getting poorer, it does not make sense to create
pressures for general price increases by taking away stuff or people from the
economy. It just makes your slide into poverty faster.

~~~
dukeluke
Your argument would be true if the lower and middle classes were benefiting
from the growth of the economy, but it hasn't much at all.

------
megous
I believe a lot of people could still benefit from reading about Broken Window
fallacy, etc. It is still relevant 167 years later. Hint, it applies to labor
too.

[http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html](http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html)

~~~
alphabettsy
You should research the results of the theory in practice..

~~~
megous
You can really not, because economy is a complex system where you can never
control other factors.

At times, you may get actual reduction in some metric (say GDP), at others you
may still get an increase in response to some major intervention into economy,
because there are other inseparable overriding factors (like being in the
middle of some major advance in technology, or business practices - but you
can never know, control for that).

You can only reason apriori about economic forces/interactions.

