Undocumented Chinese men say they're baffled by Trump's reported plans to deport them first
1y 5mon ago by lemmy.world/u/MicroWave in news from www.nbcnews.com
Summary
Undocumented Chinese men are alarmed by Trump’s plan to prioritize their deportation, citing baseless national security concerns about “military-age” immigrants.
Many fled political persecution or economic hardship and reject claims of being a threat.
Legal experts warn of racial profiling and expanded ICE raids, urging immigrants to know their rights. Deportation fears grow as China cooperates in repatriation efforts.
Chinese immigrants express anxiety over family separations and harsh consequences if returned, emphasizing they seek safety and stability, not harm.
Critics call Trump’s policies cruel and unjustified.
It's standard fascist procedure. Always attack the weakest perceived out group first. Before going for the larger ones.
I am not a socialist, trade unionist, or a Jew, so I don't see any problems here.
How dark are you in the browness scale? /s
Your comment having 88 upvotes kinda jumped out at me.
I'm sure you're aware, but some people seem confused, so I'm going to post a link here to the poem that is being referenced above.
/s is mandatory
It literally isn’t
Public education has been sabotaged for half a century into little more than laborer daycare to cut oligarch taxes and keep laborers as ignorant and easily manipulated as possible.
It is.
I was being sarcastic
Then put a /s and we would have known that.
I wasn’t actually being sarcastic lmao
Chinese exclusion act part 2. Sigh.
If indeed focused on immigrants of Chinese descent, Trump’s deportation policies are likely to be challenged legally as a blatant example of racial profiling.
Of course this will happen. It is racist, but that's fine with them.
SC will allow it.
Currently Korematsu seems to be unfavorable but we will see for how long.
I am very surprised he is going to do what he said he is going to do!
to be fair, they do not use the word “surprise” once in the article, “baffled” and “alarmed” are much more precise terms they accurately use, and undocumented migrants cannot vote.
tldr, this isn’t really a leopards ate my face situation. (not saying that’s your point but just in case anyone gets the wrong impression and starts clowning on these poor guys.)
reason 116 i voted against trump; messing with my local Chinese buffet
US economy gonna instantly contract 5% if all the hole-in-the-wall Chinese restaurants have to shut down when their workers get deported
If only it were just hole in the wall places..
The local higher end places like sushi and hibachi joints are also staffed almost entirely by Chinese migrants around me. One of the places I worked for a while even had a weird arrangement to get people into the country, probably illegally (they didn’t stay with the company for more than a month before moving on to a bigger city, so I’m sure this was some sort of illegal immigration operation.. none of my business.)
We had a Chinese restaurant here years ago that ran into issues with that. The manager of the location would bus his kitchen staff in every morning. And they would close it and he would bus them home at night. None of them could speak a lick of English apart from the manager. Who was Korean. The kitchen staff was Venezuelan and all undocumented. This went on for years with kitchen staff all living out of a motel on an outer road near the river.
Venezuelan no-English kitchen staff working for a Korean manager for a Chinese restaurant?
Fantastic mix.
Lots of ethnic restaurants that the back of the house is staffed by illegal immigrant Hispanics. It seems they can pretty much out cook everyone.
We had a little dive diner sort of place in town here that was bought out by a Hispanic family. Cool, do your thing la familia.
They chose not to update the menu, from boring white people breakfast food to literally anything else. Problem is they had no fucking clue how to make boring white people breakfast food.
So corned beef hash was just chopped bacon. White gravy was grainy and gross and clearly not made with enough browned oil/butter. So on and so forth. It was just not at all good, and they folded after a few months because yeah you just gave away the bacon (literally).
So while yes often that’s the case, it really needs to be trained up as an ongoing thing and not just an assumption lol
You're talking about human trafficking and wage/debt slavery in a pretty blase manner.
i think their tone is perfectly acceptable
I’m not sure exactly what you want me to say about it.. I didn’t feel the anecdote required full backstory, but here ya go:
I worked there years ago for a whopping 6 months, mostly removed from the work those migrants were doing. The owner of the place was a Chinese dual citizen with close ties to her homeland (she went to China 4 times while I was there). I observed these things happening, but frankly I have no idea if it was a legit program or human trafficking. I talked to most of the people that came through in that time (about 2/mth via text with google translate, because I don’t know enough mandarin to do it manually, but they were excited to talk to a native resident even through translate), and they all seemed happy and frankly excited for the opportunity to be there, and had free reign to travel onward to big cities when work came up in their social sphere, which they all did as soon as possible because I’m in a small town.
When I say that it’s probably illegal immigration, what I assume the owner was doing is signing work visas for people to bring them over totally legally, and then just not disclosing that they moved on to other employers after a month. Or maybe the visas were transferred to the new employer, idk. None of my business.
Many years prior to that job, when I was in highschool, I worked in industrial agriculture with half documented half undocumented Hispanic workers who were also happy to be there doing what they were doing, and the only thing any of them wanted to change was their legal status (they got paid same shit federal minimum wage as I did, which I know because my dad was the site manager). They were super sneaky, too, and didn’t speak English with any non-migrants at work.. except me, despite being management’s offspring. Cuz I worked hard to keep up with them, and I’m cool and wouldn’t rat them out to management as speaking English while I muddle through terribly broken Spanish to keep the front up for them (plausible deniability is valuable at work). I’m chill with making management work harder to employ immigrants if that’s what they want (which they clearly did), but I’m also pretty chill with illegals, because the process to be legal is truly grueling at usually 20+ years.
So.. none of my business. If anyone had ever said or even mildly indicated they weren’t happy with the arrangement, I’d have made effort to do something about it, but they didn’t and I’m not here to ruin lives over speculation.
Still actually seems trivial compared to the incoming Tariffs and mass industry deregulation.
Add the contraction from deporting all South and Central Americans (we'll see if only those without papers or all).
I'm not racist or nothing, but the biggest threat to this country is the white man. It makes me ashamed to share genetics with these troglodytes.
The biggest threat to our country are sweeping generalizations of entire races, classes and creeds.
and not enough dead billionaires.
~Troglodyte
There are only two things I can't stand in this world: People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
That's still racist
It’s not racist for @gnomesaiyan@lemmy.world to make this statement when viewed through the framework of critical race theory. This perspective emphasizes that “white” has never been a fixed racial category but rather a social construct tied to the maintenance of white supremacist power structures. As outlined in this article, “whiteness” functions as an ideology rather than a biological or ethnic identity.
Example: Throughout U.S. history, groups such as Italians, Irish, and Jewish people were excluded from “whiteness” before being gradually assimilated into the category. This shifting definition of “whiteness” underscores its role in reinforcing systemic hierarchies, as discussed here.
edit: My only qualm with their comment is the “sharing genetics” part, which, as discussed above, isn’t a real thing.
Ding ding ding! Correct!
being correct on the internet is my second favorite hobby
What’s your favorite hobby?
making these fat STACKS BRUV
Great read, thanks for sharing, and totally agree
The suicide rate among our group is going up. If that helps.
I disagree. The neurotypical man is the biggest threat.
So you're racist against white people.
Nice try. I'm actually a misanthrope. Racism is for stupid people.
To be fair a LITERAL white man is the biggest threat to America
Isn't he orange
Touché
I'm a white man and I agree with them. Am I racist against myself?
Yes
No, actually
https://lemmy.cafe/comment/8993596cc @FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
Hi spujb. I had a very long debate about this already but feel free to discuss this through the lens of CRT without me. I'm not familiar enough with the specifics anyways.
being correct on the internet is my second favorite hobby
lmao. What's your first?
Yeah no problem. I read through your debate and I feel that CRT is the lens which both of you need to come to an understanding. If not today, just want to give you that nugget if you are interested in future investigation :)
What’s your first?
cranking 90s in fortnite
It's something I'm somewhat interested in, and it's fairly important. Maybe I'll do some proper research on it the next time I have some free time. Thanks for the suggestion!
cranking 90s in fortnite
Haha nice. Hope you get some time to do a few rounds this season :)
Hell yeah !
Despite the whole culture war where left leaning folks defended CRT, I get lots of downvotes when I bring up how it can actually benefit discussions by removing the need to endlessly debate whether the other person is racist. So it’s heartening to hear one person had their interest piqued along with the regular onslaught of downvotes :)
both of you need to come to an understanding.
That's going to be difficult since he ran away whining about how I was daring to suggest he was a racist under false pretences.
Fuck off Squid, I'm trying to enjoy my holiday. I have done nothing but participate in good faith. Not just as in a veneer of politeness, but truly to attempt to engage your real beliefs and express my own, fairly reasonable ones. But that's proven impossible since you've been intent on doing nothing but make accusations, twist my words to the worst possible interpretations, nitpick irrelevant points, and respond only to attack my position rather than to understand it. You've barely even presented your own. If you want to imagine me as some racist crybaby who can't handle your epic takedowns, go ahead, but don't claim it as reality.
I know you're not a lost cause, so I'll leave you with some advice. Don't assume everyone is your enemy. You'll have a much more enjoyable time trying to engage and have a real conversation than trying to put others down. You might discover that the person you assumed the worst of has essentially the same position as you, just from a different perspective. Feel free to respond and take the last word; I won't reply. I wouldn't have replied to this either but it was especially hostile so I felt the need to chime in.
Don’t assume everyone is your enemy. You’ll have a much more enjoyable time trying to engage and have a real conversation than trying to put others down. You might discover that the person you assumed the worst of has essentially the same position as you, just from a different perspective.
I'm not the one who started this by calling someone a racist. That would have been you. Take your own advice, bud.
i don’t often find myself defending you, but credit where due: yep. opening these discussions (specifically over “reverse racism”) with accusations of racism leads nowhere, in short due to the vast diversity in how people understand the word.
when people on the internet instead perform discourse over terms which are more concretely and widely accepted, discussion actually begins constructing mutual understanding instead of falling to what is essentially name calling, and can even begin to close the gap between folks’ understanding of “race.”
i pick no side here, both of you were acerbic in the discussion which is why it went nowhere. i hope you can use the lens of crt in future debates so they don’t end up so frothing with rage is all.
Cool. This is like how I'm also antisemitic for being a Jew who doesn't support Israel.
Of course, a lot of people (maybe you) don't consider Jews to be white. Elon sure doesn't. So maybe I'm not racist against myself?
I mean I'm sure you agree that being against the state of Israel or being antizionist doesn't make you antisemitic.
I don't particularly know or care if the jewish people are "white" or not. Not really my place to say anyways I suppose.
I also agree that white men have been responsible for more problems in the U.S. than any other group of people. Like all but one president.
If you don't know who is or is not white, how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?
how can you think it is even possible to be racist against white people?
Very easy. If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.
That's what racism is.
If you agree with something that is true, you're a racist? What?
Is "black people are far more likely than anyone else to get sickle cell anemia" racist? Because it is a sweeping generalization.
Or, if you want to go back to white people and crime, how about- "69.9% of arrested criminals in 2019 were white?" I have to disagree with that fact or I'm a racist? I have to deny reality if I don't want to be a racist? That's really what you think?
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43
"All strawberries are fruits" does not imply "all fruits are strawberries" .
Saying "white people are a threat" is not the same as saying "these people who are a threat are white".
The former is the statement you agreed with, and now you're desperately trying to paint it as the latter.
It's not. You're rationalizing racism.
I'm doing no such thing. This is what you said:
If you make or agree with sweeping generalizations about a race, you are racist.
Not all black people get sickle cell anemia and not all people who get sickle cell anemia are black, so (and I'll even revise it to make it more general) "black people are at risk for sickle cell anemia" is a sweeping generalization. Therefore, if you agree with it, you're racist. Based on your own claim.
Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts. If someone were to say that black people are on average responsible for [insert problem here], even if it were true, that's generally considered racist.
And, that's a bit silly. I can call someone doing racist black caricatures racist against black people without knowing if some particular country's population is generally considered to be black.
Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?
And if you can't determine the criteria for whiteness, how can you know if anything you say is racist? It could be true once you determine the criteria.
Also:
without knowing if some particular country’s population is generally considered to be black.
Jews don't have a country. Jew and Israeli are not synonyms. That is bigotry.
The analogy still works if we're talking about a race rather than a country. You're nitpicking the details, not attacking the actual point being made. The point is that there is no such thing as a strict definition of race, but that such a thing isn't necessary to talk about race as a concept. It would be like saying "you can't say you like sandwiches unless you define what a sandwich is". We all know on the internet that is an impossible definition, but we can still meaningfully talk about sandwiches.
Traditionally based on what? What tradition is this? Who made it a tradition?
The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I'm using the most common definition of racism that I know. No definition is kore valid than any other in theory, so if you want to explain what you think racism is I'll switch to talking about your definition.
I'm not nitpicking on the details, I'm pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.
Perhaps you're not the best judge of bigotry?
And let's see evidence of this "natural evolution" that involves statistics. That doesn't sound like how language works to me.
I’m not nitpicking on the details, I’m pointing out you yourself said something which, in context, sure sounded bigoted to me.
I needed a way to refer to a racial group that could potentially be a part of a larger race. The word "subrace" would be accurate but sounds incredibly racey and probably has bad connotations that I'm not aware of so I used the example of a small, semi-distinct racial group potentially within a larger race. Many countries have small distinct racial groups, which seemed like the best example. Sue me.
And let’s see evidence of this “natural evolution” that involves statistics. That doesn’t sound like how language works to me.
Literally what does this even mean? What are you talking about??
Anyways, now that I've clarified my point you can stop nitpicking and respond to my actual argument. Or are you only interested in calling me a bigot?
You seem to have a poor memory:
Traditionally racism that is based on statistics and aggregate numbers still counts.
Then I asked you what makes it traditional and you said:
The natural evolution of the English language as determined by multiple societies. I’m using the most common definition of racism that I know.
So let's see some evidence of this natural evolution based on statistics and aggregate numbers.
Why yes I do have a memory disorder, thanks for reminding me. I must've forgotten.
But, I think you're confused about what I'm saying there. I'm not saying that the evolution of language is "based on statistics and aggregate numbers", and I don't see how it could be interpreted that way. I'm saying that language naturally evolves, and that the definition of racism that I see most commonly has evolved into including negative statements about a race based on factual statistics. For example, "80% of [insert race here] commits [insert type of crime here]". Even if it were true, that would be considered racist. If you don't agree, ok, I'll use your definition.
Anyways, I'm not sure why I'm arguing about this. You literally agreed with a comment calling an entire race of people troglodytes who the op was ashamed to share their genetics with. I'm pretty sure it was satire. So. Yeah, idk what else to say here
Facts aren't racist, they're facts. "80% of ___ commits ___ crime" is not racist if it's true.
And, again, please do show me evidence of a definition of racism that includes true statements.
Facts aren’t racist, they’re facts. “80% of ___ commits ___ crime” is not racist if it’s true.
Ok, then you're not racist for pointing out that white people are responsible for some horrible things. You would still be racist for calling them troglodytes though.
The majority of white men voted for Trump.
60% of white men who voted voted for Trump. And if you count all the white men who didn't vote at all, thus letting Trump get into power, it's far, far higher number.
That last definition sounds right to me.
-
You're generalizing that trend to the whole race
-
You're assigning all the blame to white people when other races also increased their support of Trump (eg. it doubled among black men)
-
Including the people who didn't vote, I'm pretty sure every race has a majority of ignorant people, yet you only call white people troglodytes
In short, you're making it more about race than it is. I propose the much more accurate delineation that uninformed people elected Trump. It's valuable to note that white people did that the most, but with all the caveats above I think the generalization is unwarranted.
I'll say a similar thing to you to what I said to the other person who is very upset that people dare to blame white men for things...
When Native Americans say, "the white man stole our land," are they racists?
Why are we ignoring white women? Your numbers aren't quite as good in that department. Still >50%, but we seem to have gotten a bit narrower for no reason here, no?
Anyways, no, they aren't racist, because white people did steal their land. They were the ones making all the decisions and they were overwhelmingly of the mind that native americans were a worse race. They perpetrated a literal racial genocide. Did they all do this? No, but they nearly all supported it. You can make the claim that the overwhelming majority of the entire race was racist and was totally on board with colonialism. So, you can say that the race, as a whole, is to blame. It would still be racist to blame an individual white person who had no part in the genocide. But the claim validly applies to the race as a whole, so it's not racist to make under your own definition.
That's very different from white people having a ~5% majority with very strong internal disagreements when they elected Trump.
Anyways, no, they aren’t racist, because white people did steal their land. They were the ones making all the decisions and they were overwhelmingly of the mind that native americans were a worse race. They perpetrated a literal racial genocide.
The ones making all the decisions? So just like now with U.S. politicians and Palestinians? Also U.S. politicians and sick people? Also U.S. politicians and the environment?
Did they all do this? No, but they nearly all supported it.
So just like now?
Not seeing the difference yet.
The ones making all the decisions? So just like now with U.S. politicians and Palestinians? Also U.S. politicians and sick people? Also U.S. politicians and the environment?
...yes...? And?
So just like now? Not seeing the difference yet.
I don't know how to tell you this but if you don't see the difference between 90% support with negligible resistance in the native american case, and 45-62% support (I'm dividing it based on education, not gender, since that makes more sense) with 35-51% opposition in the Trump case, you are so far from the reality that I see that you've reached escape velocity. In no world is a 10% lead "nearly all".
Please show me where you got the 90% support figure from.
It was revealed to me in a dream
To be serious, I very much doubt reliable polling data from the 1700s exists on this subject. If less people supported it than I thought, then it was less racist. It seems like most white people were fine with it though, so native americans pointing out that it happened is not racist, unless they're applying that fault to an individual white person.
You mean you're making a broad assumption about a race of people without knowing the facts?
That sounds racist based on the criteria you've laid down.
It's not an assumption, it's supported by historical accounts and is reflected in our past actions. What are you arguing? That the historical genocide of native americans wasn't partially based on large-scale racism? Stop trying to gotcha me and realize that you're implying some pretty weird stuff.
Anyways, we're just going around in circles. We're not making much rhetorical progress. I'm now in the car on my way to Christmas so I think it's time for me to take my leave instead of arguing about racism on the internet. Thanks for the convo, and happy Hanukkah if you celebrate.
Large-scale racism? You mean not all white people were racist?
Seems again, like based on your own criteria, you are making a racist claim.
Yup, there were people who protested the status quo and did not support the racist endeavors, and may not have been racist themselves. But from what I know of that period of history, it was rare. Note that I didn't use the statements about the overall situation to assign blame to any particular person.
I'm not following your claim that I'm racist and I don't really care to since you seem intent on repeatedly trying to call me racist and none of the previous claims have been accurate. Stop trying to "win" the argument, I'm already out. Take the opportunity to exit gracefully and enjoy the holiday season and move on.
you seem intent on repeatedly trying to call me racist and none of the previous claims have been accurate.
Irony.
Whether or not Jews are white depends entirely on which is convenient for the people in power at the time.
That's really how whiteness works for everyone since the meaning expanded beyond just Anglo-Saxon Protestants
Very much so.
False analogy, no one said anyone was racist against white people for saying they don't support the US.
If you're agreeing with someone who literally maligned a race, you are racist too. Period.
Yes, again, I know you think accepting facts is racist, but I'm not going to lie to myself about factual statements.
Unless you can tell me which group of people is a bigger threat. Feel free to use crime data.
No value judgment about an entire race is a fact.
You're racist.
Got it. Just like all those racist Native Americans who say things like, "white people stole our land."
Right?
Wrong. All X are Y does not imply all Y are X.
It is racist to say "White people are Z", period. If 100% of Z are white people, that changes nothing.
This is very basic logic you're failing at. Think about it.
It is racist to say “White people are Z”, period. If 100% of Z are white people, that changes nothing.
Got it. If a Native American says, "white people are the ones who stole our land," they're racist. If they say "white people stole our land," they are not racist.
encourage you to think about what forces created the categories you are discussing. who came up with the concept of “race” as you are currently using it?
It is racist to say “White people are Z”, period.
no it's not. first, whiteness isn't a race, it's an oppressive social construct. second, racism is power+privilege, so you can't be racist to white people
Okay, you let the mask slip too much, now I know you're just trolling, lol.
there's no mask. you're just wrong.
Okay, "commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com", lol.
You should admit you're fucking around instead of insisting you actually believe that nonsense though, lol. You've already been caught.
I'm as sincere as can be.
Racism is a systemic issue, you can't be racist against the oppressor.
You’re correct, and if you wanted to be more specific, you can’t participate in systemic racism against the oppressing class. You absolutely can, of course, participate in non-systemic incidents of interpersonal racism, sometimes called “reverse racism.”
But people who have no interest in examining the historical structures of white supremacy will downvote both your comments and mine because nuance isn’t as fun as calling each other racist. 🙃
Racism is a very specific term meant to point out the existence of a system of oppression. Interpersonal racism exists exclusively as a symptom of systemic racism, since there's no societal system that oppresses white people, there's no racism against white people — of any kind. Reverse racism is racist rhetoric on the level of "all lives matter" meant to deny and trivialize racism. Imagine calling battered women shelters sexist because they don't allow men.
fully agreed. nevertheless, i try to allow a little grace in this discourse because race did exist as a concept outside and generally prior to white supremacist contexts. additionally i find it’s not rhetorically useful to brute force the language like that to ears primed to favor colorblindness. rather, i favor simply describing what kind of racism is going on, which in this case is explicitly and simply non-systemic.
Its not racial, its economic war.
By continuing to promote race based fights you keep the wealthy in power.
Pointing out the existence of racism as a system of oppression isn't promoting race based fights and the fact that you think it is is so racist it borders on comedy.
"Hey, black people usually get harsher sentences than white people for the same crimes. We should, you know, stop doing that"
"Hmm, actually, it's the billionaires that are the problem so you should stop trying to pit people against each other based on their race"
Keep on doing the work of the oppressor.
Alas the poor fight the poor while the rich laugh their asses off.
Ending racism with racism, fucking brilliamt. Its like they should fight fire with fire.
No one is welcome here. Not even us.
Should be pretty easy for any Chinese citizen to claim refugee status, no? I mean basically every Chinese citizen is being persecuted by their government.
Under international law, the US can't deport someone who is pending refugee status
International law seems pretty optional if you're a superpower.
It stopped Russia from traveling to Brazil
So Russians are not oppressed by their government?
Of course they are. Life is not a binary. International laws have impacts on superpowers too.
Russia is not a friend to America. America and friends can do what they want. Remember all the war crimes America didn't get punished for in Korea and Vietnam? Or in the middle east? Or south america? Or africa? Hell we probably did a few war crimes in antarctica.
Nah. We tried, turns out penguins are as sneaky and clever as they are vicious. Lost a battalion and a half. Cold wars coldest secret.
Eh, I heard from someone who works in Australia, processing asylum claims from Chinese nationals, that, many, many claims are rejected (not sure about other countries, and this is 2nd hand info, from years ago).
Basically, while it can be argued certain, and notable numbers of Chinese citizens are being persecuted, saying every Chinese citizen is being persecuted is a bit of a stretch. Even if various freedoms are not granted in China.
The average Zhang, Wang, Li and Zhao can go about their lives with some differences to here in the west, but it's not as extreme as people portray on the internet. Most people live their lives in much the same way as they do elsewhere in the world.
Things don't have to be extreme in order to still be criticisable, in my opinion. Just like things aren't complete shit in the US, but there's a lot to criticise.
In summation, no, most Chinese immigrants wouldn't qualify as asylum seekers fleeing political persecution.
Inb4 the tankies and "China Bad" idiots: reality is nuanced, deal with it.
The gratitude I once felt toward the U.S for accepting me into the country
Okay, so no one has actually accepted an undocumented person into the country. We all want them documented. We just have different ideas of what to do with them once they are “caught”
I have. And I know plenty of others who have. Undocumented people are not the problem. The problem is the system that forces them to be undocumented. We should make it easy to be documented and provide benefits for being documented. As well as making immigration easier. If we did all that. There would be hardly any undocumented people. And the problem with those people wouldn't be so much that they were undocumented. But their reasons for being undocumented. We are forcing a lot of otherwise good honest people to be lumped in with a few criminals. In order to justify and fuel National xenophobia. That's the sad honest truth. Because there's no way we will ever document anyone and everyone that comes in across our thousands and thousands of miles of borders. It just human or technologically possible.
I agree the process should be easier
We should make it easy to be documented and provide benefits for being documented.
The 2nd half of that is already true as there are definitely benefits for being documented, one which is protection from being deported.
The first part is trickier since there seems to be some confusion on what "undocumented" means. For instance if you're already working with ICE then you are documented until the Immigration System makes its decision about you.
"Undocumented" really means that someone is here without the knowledge of the authorities at all. Ideally the US Government would simply put a stake in the ground and grant amnesty for anyone already here and then tighten things up in the future. Unfortunately we already did that back in 1986 and while the "Amnesty" part got done the other part didn't.
Our immigration system is a dumpster fire of hodge-podged laws, executive actions, court decisions, and federal agency policies. Frankly we should scrap the whole thing and return to 'Ellis Island Style" until we can re-work it from the ground up to make it function correctly.
Ellis is how my Grandparents got here and as a system it mostly worked.
That's a specious claim during the best of times. Considering we have a history of often deporting American citizens to Country they've never been to. As well as immigrants. And the fact that the Trump Administration orphaned thousands of children by doing the exact opposite. Though thankfully at Greek extra expense we were able to reunite many families. Though there are still many hundreds whose families haven't been located and may never see their parents again. That doesn't imply that that's the way it is. Though it absolutely should be that way yes.
Ideally the US Government would simply put a stake in the ground and grant amnesty for anyone already here and then tighten things up in the future.
That's a common lament of conservatives. It sounds great till you realize that there's actually no way to do that. Otherwise we would have. Even if we spent every dollar of federal funding on useless walls they're already circumventing. It wouldn't fix it. Stationing the military across tens of thousands of miles would only succeed in spreading them thin and wasting money. If people want to be here. They will find a way.
Ellis is how my Grandparents got here and as a system it mostly worked.
Honestly, it wasn't much better. It was weaponized against the Irish, Italians, Greeks and Jews. Much of my family predates Ellis and the pilgrims. We aren't as fond of it.
Something to keep in mind. Entering the country without documentation is a misdemeanor. When people are fleeing political persecution they can't get the appropriate paperwork.
A lot (not all) of these people come in and turn themselves in. The policy is (was?) recognize that minor documentation issue and let them stay while it gets resolved. In that manner yes they were accepted, if only temporarily, while their documentation problems are resolved.
I’m fine with that scenario. That’s “documented” in the sense that we know they are here. As long as they are actively seeking papers, I’m good.
But it sucks to be them in 2025
Chains for thee, but not for me.-crowd.
The CCP members, PLA soldiers and MSS agents should not be baffled.