Utah Tech @ 
Utah Buk m Buk and immigration law thoughts
Welcome Cyclones Fans! › Forums › Misc › Buk m Buk and immigration law thoughts
- This topic has 27 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 6 months, 4 weeks ago by
The Miami Ute.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
chinngiskhaan
ParticipantI’m here studying for my immigration law final and randomly thought about this dirtbag. I’m sure many people have wondered why we didn’t just send the guy back to Sudan, where he came from ages ago after he committed his first crime.
The answer is, he is a refugee, and international law dictates that we cannot send him back. To qualify as a refugee some persecution has to be shown in the place that you are fleeing. It is against international law to send such people back where they came from.
That is not the only issue with how his convictions have been handled, but that is why he hasn’t been removed by an immigration judge (and likely never will be if I understand the law correctly).
-
stbone
ParticipantWe only care about international law when it is aligned with the objectives of the current administration. At the end of the day, and for whatever reason, the US government wants to flood the country with foreigners. There will be many more Aaron Lowes because of this.
-
Participant
that isn’t how international law works, and I’m pretty sure his legal troubles have spanned multiple presidencies.
There is good reason for “flooding the country” with foreigners by the way. Our economy would be in even deeper s**t without them. The fact that even illegal immigrants are a boon to the economy is well established. (I’m not claiming illegal immigration is a good thing, but it does benefit the economy).
-
DrahtUte
ParticipantThat has to be one of the worst takes I’ve ever read on this board.
-
D TParticipantWhat??
-
belli1976
ParticipantChinng is spot on.
There are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.
1.4 million of them work in construction. Could you imagine if all of those workers disappeared what would happen to house prices? There is already a shortage.
There is 1.1 million in accommodations and food services. Imagine the wait to get your burrito. Or your hotel room only gets cleaning service once if you stay for 4 days or more.
-
Participant
It sucks that things ended up that way, but that is the reality of our situation. It isn’t a political issue. It is simple math. We do not have enough people willing to do the work that needs to be done to keep our economy rolling along. Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are an absolute necessity.
If there is one thing I’ve learned studying immigration law, it is that our immigration system is broken beyond repair.
-
Participant
There would certainly be economic fallout, but it wouldn’t all be on one side. For example, housing prices, in some markets, would probably drop because of lower demand. Regardless of the fallout, I don’t think economics justify the creation of a subservient class. (I am sure cotton prices went up with freeing slaves) Also, the system is only broken because the politicians/government/churches/companies don’t want it fixed. To many people are making money off of the broken system.
-
Central Coast UteParticipantStbone is 100% correct. They’re importing cheap labor because they don’t want to pay Americans more money to do the job. These people are basically slaves. If they get hurt, oh well, they’re here illegally, and they’re not covered.
Here, on the central coast, there are a large number of illegal immigrants. We find 14 year old girls working in the fields with no family at all in the area. They were brought here to work for basically table scraps. And the sex trafficking that goes along with it is abhorrent. Our economy be damned. It killed the South’s economy to lose slaves. Oh, well. Screw it. Figure something else out.-
Participant
Its not that simple. Like pretty much everything else in this country, as you suggest, much of this is indeed motivated by greed. It is absolutely true that a percentage (I don’t know what percentage) of illegal immigrants are brought over by companies that don’t want to pay workers an honest wage. That is a bad thing. There is also a class of illegal immigrants that came of their own volition, on their own, without any company on the other side aiding them, there are also those who arrived legally but have since let their status lapse and are now illegal.
Stbone has some good points, but he is nowhere near 100% correct. Comparing them to slaves is inaccurate at best. Most of them chose to come, the slaves did not. Most of them could leave whenever they wanted and go home, the slaves could not. Many of these immigrants who have been compared to slaves would (and do) fight tooth and nail to stay here if told they had to leave.
The way they are often treated is wrong. That is a huge problem that needs to be addressed. Getting them documented would make a big difference, and that much is possible.
Lastly, however you feel about illegal immigration, the reality is we do not have the resources to solve the problem. Even if the government wanted to, it would be practically impossible. The system for removing those found removable is simply too far behind. We are already having to resort to things like prosecutorial discretion to get to the people who most deserve to be removed (convicted criminals and people who recently arrived). We were far behind before COVID happened, now we are millions of cases behind with the gap growing steadily.
-
Participant
To clarify, I didn’t compare illegals to slaves, I said we are creating a subservient class. I compared the economic fallout of eliminating the subservient class to the economic fallout from freeing the slaves to make the broader point that in issues of morality and human dignity, economics becomes trivial.
Saying that current immigration policy is ok because there is no clear company pulling illegals into the country misses the point. The fact is, whole industries (you pointed out construction) are relying on being able to passively attract massive numbers of below market earners. While these companies might pass on those savings to consumers, they are externalizing the cost of their cheap labor tosociety at large. This is in the form of unpaid for social services, higher crime, higher housing costs, etc. Even when the companies aren’t specifically bringing in the illegals, they are benefiting from the human trafficking and they are intentionally creating circumstances and opportunities to encourage illegal immigration.
To Central Coast Ute’s point, when you get close to the border, the reality of the trafficking is appalling. Rape trees were common in the AZ desert 20 years ago, and based on data I have seen, currently about 60% of all illegals coming into the US across the Southern border are sexually assaulted. On top of that, the trade in humans is done by the same people who are infusing poison into our nation’s blood in the form of fentanyl and other drugs. Illegals and drugs go hand-in-hand and are inseparable issues.
Lastly, creating a pathway to legalization won’t solve the problem. We tried that in the 80’s, and all that got us was more of the same. We could easily address these problems by enforcing current laws and preventing illegals from receiving any services. But, like I said, government (it isn’t just ours, this exact same problem is playing out across Europe) doesn’t want to solve the problem.
-
Central Coast UteParticipant
You’re right they’re not all slaves. But we do know for a fact that there are women and children brought here against their will to work as sex slaves. ICE can’t verify who they are and if they’re with a family member, but they let them go anyway. It’s pure evil.
I wouldn’t think most of them are brought here by corporations. I live in an agricultural area along the central coast of California. The people here probably mostly came of their own volition except for the children i already mentioned, even the ones not here as sex slaves. They work in the fields for what we would consider, not very much money for the work they do. The ranchers and farmers love it because they don’t have to pay them very much, and they don’t have to insure them. So technically, not slavery, but definitely exploitation in every sense of the word. They work the fields, they breathe in pesticides, and they have a very high rate of birth defects that the farms/ranches and insurance companies don’t have to take care of. That’s passed on to the taxpayers.
You’re right. It’s hard to get rid of the ones that are already here. But it can be done. The first step is to close the border down and not offer government handouts to non citizens
-
-
-
-
-
RustyShacklefordParticipantOof
-
The Miami UteParticipantChingis, you’re a smart guy but you’re way out over your skis on this issue. The fact is that if someone claims that immigration doesn’t carry any adverse economic consequences, they likely lack a comprehensive understanding of its mechanics. When the labor pool expands, the cost for firms to employ workers diminishes. Long-term wage patterns indicate that a 10 percent rise in the workforce possessing specific skills typically leads to about a 3 percent reduction in wages for that skill cohort. Even after complete economic adaptation, skill categories with higher immigration influxes will likely continue to provide comparatively lower pay than those with fewer immigrants.
Both individuals with lower and higher levels of skills among native populations experience impacts due to the influx of immigrants. However, because a significant proportion of immigrants possess limited skills, it is predominantly low-skilled American workers, including many from black and Hispanic communities, who bear the brunt of this decline in wages. The financial setback is substantial. On average, a high school dropout earns around $25,000 annually. According to census data, the admission of immigrants over the last two decades without a high school diploma has amplified the size of the low-skilled workforce by approximately 25 percent. Consequently, the earnings of this particularly vulnerable demographic have decreased by an estimated $800 to $1,500 per year.
Then there’s this: Immigrants tend to avail of government assistance at higher rates compared to native-born individuals. The increased expenditure on services rendered to immigrants, coupled with their lower tax contributions due to comparatively lower earnings, inevitably results in an annual fiscal deficit of at least $50 billion attributed to immigration—a financial burden borne by the native population.
I paraphrased the above but the original source is George J. Borjas, professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School.
-
Participant
Miami – wants a higher inflation. Two main reason. Your thoughts shrink supply in two realms. Fewer workers will cause wages to increase. Fewer workers will lead less production. Fewer services/good will demand higher prices due to scarcity.
But the labor participation rate is horrible some may. It is only about 0.5% lower than before the pandemic. Which the drop due to the pandemic was an anomaly. It had stay relative flat for 6-7 years for the pandemic.
-
-
-
-
EagleMountainUteParticipantI have not heard this as an issue being discussed other than by yourself. Is it an academic point of interest I understand your topic.
Most people are looking at the DA pleading down an egregious criminal to where he will be let go someday.
I am not discussing the issues of incarceration reform. I am speaking of corrupt DA’s across the nation cowardly not prosecuting violent criminals. There seems to be this disconnect in arguments when you have issues core to this type of case. It comes off as ridiculous coupled with Sim Gills comments publicly.-
Participant
To be clear, I am not 100% sure he would have been removable on his previous offenses, but IF HE WAS they would not have been allowed to remove him. Was that even discussed in his case? I don’t know. There were a lot of mistakes made, but if they did indeed try to have him removed, that would not have been possible. I don’t know the name of the law, I just know it was briefly discussed in my class and both professors said it can’t (legally) be done.
-
-
Central Coast UteParticipant
Which is why we need to stop giving s**t about what people in other countries think. Im not sure why we let others dictate to us who is allowed in our country. If you come here as a refugee, fine. But don’t be a dick. If you can’t handle that, maybe you’d like to go back to whatever mess you fled. If people knew that was an option, they might think twice.
-
ironman1315ParticipantMy condolences to you on being in law school (I assume).
Signed
Current law taking guy.
-
StoneParticipantIf he were sent back, would it be with the promise that he would serve prison time there? If not, then I would definitely not be in favor of sending him back, at least not until his sentence is fully served. Otherwise, it would be a “get out of jail free” card, literally.
-
Central Coast UteParticipant
He definitely needs to serve his sentence here. I think the question being raised is if he could have been deported after his prior convictions, which would have prevented Aaron Lowes’ death.
-
-
Utehomer42ParticipantI did not have UteHub debating the ramifications of illegal immigration on my bingo card of discussed topics this year. Man we need the football season to start soon so we can talk about “important topics” including Ludwig’s questionable play-calling, Cam’s knee whenever he runs, how we miss the PAC 12, or our dismay of playing sub-par competition from the middle of nowhere. 🙂
-
DataUteParticipantFolks always focus on the illegal immigration. If we did give them papers, they would still do similar jobs because that’s the skills they may have. Yes, they would have more rights and protections to avoid being exploited, but that’s where wages would go up for them and be passed on. Just raising wages aren’t going to attract citizens to jobs – many still won’t pick crops or do construction.
But what about LEGAL IMMIGRATION. That system is even more screwed up. There are so many that come and get degrees, even graduate degrees and get 2 years of H1B and then have to leave (or not work if they are on a dependent visa – so stupid). So we get a brain drain to Canada. Canada, BTW, brings in ~500k (1% of population) immigrants a year, LEGALLY, and needs them to fill in gaps of employment including healthcare and other critical areas. There are incentives to move to less populated areas (not just Toronto and Vancouver). If we were to bring in the same %, it’d be over 3M a year. The quotas and caps on green cards are outdated and rules are archaic.
Back to Chinng’s first assertion – Buk was here LEGALLY as a refugee. Whether he became bad, fell into the wrong crowd, or otherwise rotten, he (under current law) couldn’t just be kicked out. Just like a US citizen, we can’t just say ‘you committed a crime, back to Denmark!’ Prior crimes should have been tried as anyone else. Does this mean he shouldn’t have been allowed in? Most refugees are wonderful people coming from really terrible situations (how many of you have actually done any service to help them get settled and seen the appreciative smiles of adults and children)? Frankly, Buk was a criminal. He became one. He was given a chance at a better life and he blew it. And it cost the Lowe’s their kid. It sucks, but Buk wasn’t just going to be kicked out from prior crimes. That’s not how it works.
The whole system does need an overhaul. Nothing major since the 90s and before that, the 60s. Frankly, we need the workers. We also need security and safety, but many of our current laws drive things underground even more. There are definitely issues with drugs and trafficking, and they are insidious, but just like the war on drugs, we will lose if we focus on supply side and not demand side. But even then, the few bad actors are not as big as politicians and shock jocks cry out, but that’s what gets the clicks.
-
The Miami UteParticipant
Just asking, what would satisfy you? A USA with a population of 500M? 700M? 1B? If people can’t afford to buy homes now, I can just imagine if we double or triple our population. The pressure on resources, services, and the environment would also be at an extreme.
The fact is that we don’t need any more immigration, unless it’s discreet and targeted. There’s no frontier to be won or cities to be built or spaces to be conquered. Anyone coming here now is just competition for scarce housing and other necessities of life.
Think about this, in just this century, the USA has added almost 60 million people (from 282M to almost 342M), or almost the entire country of France, to its population. The majority of that increase has been due to immigration, both legal and undocumented. The US also has, by far, the highest number of foreign born residents in the world. And I mean, it’s not even close. The US has 51M immigrants. Germany is second with 16M. So it isn’t like we haven’t done our part.
Other countries in the western hemisphere like Argentina, Brazil, Chile and even Mexico to a lesser extent used immigration to develop themselves but eventually stopped because they started reaching the point of diminishing returns just as we have.
Whatever the case, this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the most serious manner. If we don’t, it will be another major friction point on the road to disintegration.
-
DataUteParticipant
I’d refer you to Freakonomics episode 580-582.
The housing crisis is more because of investors (domestic and foreign) that are (and not) renting out units, creating a greater spread of have and have nots. This is more than straight supply and demand, and we need policy revision there, too.
The choices made by the US and immigration (moving spectrum of who was ok and who was all right from Irish to Italians to Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc. and now Mexicans/central Americans) drove the growth we enjoy now. Immigrants started nearly half of the major tech companies. Children of immigrants really are a bigger driver. We still have a ton of empty space. Our density is not even near most European countries. Granted, we have some spaces in the west that have significant water issues. Other countries that started down immigration paths and stopped have stalled, and their economies are a wreck (Argentina, Brazil), also due to corruption and other policy choices. Shut our doors without smart immigration and our economy stalls as well. Also, we are below replacement rate in the US. We will have real issues like Japan is starting to have. I’d also suggest ‘The End of the World is Just the Beginning’ by Peter Zeihan.
So what if we are the most diverse country? That’s such a populist/nationalist worry. Legal and good policy immigration is needed, but politicians only want to harp on the bad illegals killing us and trafficking kids. Xenophobia is weak.
BTW, I have an immigrant in my house. IR4 visa to green card to citizen upon adoption. Guess we should have shut our doors. Will create a housing crisis.
Messed up immigration system-
The Miami UteParticipant
You know, I hear that “we still have a lot of empty space” quite a bit from the pro-immigration crowd. What it fails to take into consideration is that large portions of US territory are not suitable for habitation (particularly in the West), or are part of the national and state park systems, or belong to federally recognized American Indian tribes, or have little to no attraction for the majority of the population.
BTW, I’m glad that you have an immigrant in your house. I see an immigrant every time I look in the mirror.
-
CharlieParticipantEmpty space and space for population have nothing in common. Peak Population is so misunderstood. You can focus on peak population that can possibly be supported by the earth resources or identify the point that quality of life begins significant decline. Any one of the thirty most critical resources in short supply kicks in decline, even a few in combination will will feel like it is here. We should shoot for something better than the minimum to maintain life, why not also enjoy life. Next the planet will not hit peak population all at once, instead some countries will experience it much earlier. Countries with favorable resources to population will maintain quality of life best.
If you ever look into becoming an expatriate to pretty much any country, Mexico included, they have a legal process. If you do not follow it, you risk being deported. Many pretty much view you like a job applicant. If I was to live abroad, I am comfortable with a process that is selective and would be comfortable with a requirement that would send me back if convicted of a serious crime. We could consider matching immigration to actual need.
-
The Miami UteParticipant
Yeah Charlie, I have that space argument with pro-massive immigration people all of the time. They focus solely on the size of the USA and completely ignore how populations would be concentrated around the country or what the quality of life would be for those people. Let me tell you, if we continue the way we’re going, it won’t be long before we start seeing the growth of massive favelas like in Brazil on the outskirts of all major cities in the USA.
Years ago, I used to live in west El Paso but worked in east El Paso. How I got work was using I-10 which ran right along the border with Mexico and Ciudad Juarez. Because the terrain is mountainous along that span, you could get a pretty good view of Juarez from the highway. While El Paso was definitely 1st World, when you looked at Juarez, all you could were massive complexes of shanty towns and favelas. That’s our future unless we get a good handle on immigration and housing prices. I just looked it up and the data shows that, since 1970, the cost of building has soared by 383%, and the cost of land has jumped by 500% nationally. Keep in mind that these figures are national averages, and costs in high-demand areas like New York City and San Francisco are much higher. Consequently, not only has building become less frequent since the 1970s, but when construction does occur, companies must charge more to account for these increased costs.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
