Low cost living and quality of life/safety issues

[Chad]

Southpark

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik

Kind of NSFW.

[Riggerjack]

On a separate issue riding to the OP, I've never lived down in the deepest darkest depths of a city. I have lived in "the suburbs". but when people talk about good and bad neighborhoods, they talk about areas blocks apart.
Seriously?
Being raised by addicts, I'm pretty familiar with crime. None of the criminals I've known were so lazy they wouldn't go a few more blocks for better opportunities. What is it that you city folks thinks defines the boundaries of bad neighborhoods? Better lighting?

[jennypenny]

On a separate issue riding to the OP, I've never lived down in the deepest darkest depths of a city. I have lived in "the suburbs". but when people talk about good and bad neighborhoods, they talk about areas blocks apart.
Seriously?
Being raised by addicts, I'm pretty familiar with crime. None of the criminals I've known were so lazy they wouldn't go a few more blocks for better opportunities. What is it that you city folks thinks defines the boundaries of bad neighborhoods? Better lighting?

Yeah, it actually works that way. At least, in Philly it can. Trenton, too. IIRC, Skid Row in Vancouver is like that, isn't it? Sometimes certain blocks *belong* to certain groups or people. Other times, it's simply a result of where cops are willing (or unwilling) to patrol regularly. It can even be divided by transportation like the El or a bus route.

[Chad]

It can be geography a lot of the time too. I would include railroad lines and freeways, as geographical features.

Of course, the criminals can cross these geographic and block "ownership" lines, but weirdly it doesn't seem to be unbelievably common. What they really don't do is cross those lines and just hangout. They may cross those lines now and then to commit a crime, but by not being their constantly their chances of seeing a crime of opportunity are greatly lowered.

[Riggerjack]

Well, I've been to Vancouver once, as an adult, and it seemed pretty shitty e everywhere. Mind you, it was a daytrip during the Olympics, and I don't like cities. But the filth, graffiti, barred windows and general decay didn't happen for a 2 week event.

I guess my question is are these boundaries real, and why?

[Chad]

I think it's mostly psychological. That's their "home", it's who they are comfortable with. This keeps them in that area during most of the day, so opportunistic crimes are going to committed there.

For instance, if you look at DC's crime heat map, it's rather obvious that the east and south of DC are the "bad" areas. Crime dies down in the "good" neighborhoods. Plus, it's rather obvious when you transition from a good to bad neighborhood.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/Washi ... bia/crime/

[jacob]

@Riggerjack - I'm by no means an immigration expert. Here's what I know:

First, there are a massive amount of student visas, the F-1s. I presume you need to be admitted to some university and remain in good standing. Without these a lot of university science departments would probably have to close down ;-P

Most professionals come via J-1 and H-1 visas which are time-limited (a few years) and job-limited. Back when I was on a J-1 I was no allowed to have any earned income other than my official job. However, this is how the elite enjoys free movement of labor, provided that they stay in the corporate/academic systems. I think there are higher level visas that allow longer stays, e.g. professors, ... you also have to demonstrate that said job can not be filled by a US citizen. This is not hard to do since all these jobs are highly specialized/idiosyncratic.

In any case, these do no automatically lead to permanent residency. However, I know a few how came in on an F-1, then became J-1 and H-1 and then about a decade later became permanent residents. I'm not sure how that works.

Then there's marriage which is how I became a resident. Basically, your spouse has to vouch that they can/will support you (so the government doesn't need to) and they have to meet certain income standards for the past x years. Then you pay about $1000 in fees to fill out a significant amount of obtuse paper work. The amount of information required is on the level of a minor security clearance. Basically, 10-15 years of history of past addresses, past jobs, countries visited, check this box if you've ever committed genocide, acts of moral indecency, ... that sort of stuff.

I like to DIY but after hitting a catch-22, we hired a lawyer to do this. You also have to be finger printed, blood tested, etc. As par for the course if you fail any of these, e.g. arrive 10 minutes late for your finger printing session which might be 100 miles away, the application is considered abandoned. Go back to start and please pay another $1000.

Then there's the lottery. Free for all, but a very limited number of "winners".

And there's the entrepreneurial visa in which you basically have to start a company and invest X amount (low to mid six figures) and hire Y American's (I think 10 or more?). There are US companies who will start one for you in your name if you pay them. This is pretty expensive but not entirely out of reach.

TL;DR - There's no practical way that Pedro can get in legally to work as a welder or a book keeper. I have heard about temporary work visas for seasonal workers but I don't know if they're real or just a suggestion for Washington to put a rubber stamp on the seasonal immigration and emmigration of farm workers.

[GandK]

It's great to see all this as part of the discussion. Most born Americans know nothing about the immigration process and assume that there's a line that anyone can go queue up in that will eventually result in citizenship. That isn't true for everyone.

Several of my former coworkers (well-educated software developers and financial analysts) were in the country on H1B visas. Most have no intention of becoming citizens, but a handful did take those steps. It took about a decade. It was an eye-opening and humbling experience for me to watch what they went through. We threw people a big party when they became citizens. Man, did they earn it.

[RealPerson]

The notion that there is a line for immigration, sort of like getting in line to check out at the grocery store, is indeed false. For most people without unique skills, there simply is no line to get in. Illegal immigration is pretty much the only option for these people.

Employers can apply for a temporary visa for seasonal workers. I know someone who does that. He owns a landscaping business. It costs money and then your employees are paid according to the applicable employment lines. So most employers prefer to just hire illegals because they avoid the immigration cost and hassle and can underpay their workers.

I know a J-1 visa is one that normally requires a minimum 2 year return to your home country after your visa expires. You can circumvent that, but a lawyer comes in handy there. That may have been the catch 22 that Jacob mentioned.

A F-1 visa is simply a student visa without strings attached. So you can go straight to permanent resident status, for examply by marrying a US resident. No requirement to first return to the home country.

I have heard that it is most important that you pay all your taxes properly, even when you are illegal. If you try to become legal in the future, a lack of paying your taxes in the past pretty much shuts the door for you. Uncle Sam is mostly interested in $$.

As an aside, it is estimated that about 10% of the US citizens living in Europe are illegal immigrants in the EU. They either work without a permit or are overstaying their visa. Illegal immigration is not restricted to Latin Americans.

[Chad]

My main point is there is no practical way to keep them out. A great example is the border between East and West Germany during the Cold War.

The relative openness of the border ended abruptly on 26 May 1952, when the GDR implemented a "special regime on the demarcation line"....

A ploughed strip 10 m (32.8 ft) wide was created along the entire length of the inner German border. An adjoining "protective strip" (Schutzstreifen) 500 m (1,640 ft) wide was placed under tight control. A "restricted zone" (Sperrzone) a further 5 km (3.1 mi) wide was created in which only those holding a special permit could live or work. Trees and brush were cut down along the border to clear lines of sight for the guards and to eliminate cover for would-be crossers. Houses adjoining the border were torn down, bridges were closed and barbed-wire fencing was put up in many places. Farmers were permitted to work their fields along the border only in daylight hours and under the watch of armed guards, who were authorised to use weapons if their orders were not obeyed.

....Between 1949 and the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961, an estimated 3.5 million East Germans – a sixth of the entire population – emigrated to the West, most via Berlin.

.....The inner German border system also extended along the Baltic coast, dubbed the "blue border" or sea border of the GDR. The coastline was partly fortified along the east side mouth of the river Trave opposite the West German port of Travemünde. Watchtowers, walls and fences stood along the marshy shoreline to deter escape attempts and the water was patrolled by high-speed East German boats.

.....The GDR implemented a variety of security measures along its Baltic coastline to hinder escape attempts. Camping and access to boats was severely limited[30] and 27 watchtowers were built along the Baltic coastline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_German_border

It's not just the Mexican border the US would have to fortify, it would have to fortify some of the longest coastlines on the planet. These fortifications would then have to be manned and authorized to use deadly force to even reach the efficiency of the East German border.

Of course, once those were fortified the illegal immigrants would just make an end run around all that and come in through Canada. This would still reduce the numbers significantly, but the cost would astronomical. Not to mention the massive human rights violations and morally wrong acts we would require of our new couple hundred thousand man border patrol.

The other option is to crack down on businesses using illegal immigrants. Though, I'm not convinced that would be any better. Local police agencies aren't going to do anything, as it's already illegal and they do virtually nothing. So, a "DEA" type agency would then have to be created to go around busting down doors and heads. This would end most of these business, as they wouldn't be able to even stay open and fill those slots with Americans for numerous reasons.

Of course, it's likely this would only be moderately more successful than our vaunted "Drug War", and at least as expensive, if not more, when you factor in the amount of businesses closed.

[Spartan_Warrior]

@Chad: Well, you officially convinced me, at least as far as the border control issue. I would rather have an unprotected border than a federal government with the kind of power it would take to protect the border effectively. For the record, I was thinking more along the lines of drones and surveillance than just sniping folks as they cross, but even those capabilities would be dangerous enough if turned against regular citizens (albeit that's probably inevitable anyway).

I think the existing ICE agency already serves the function of busting down doors and heads. I guess the difference would be they'd be targeting the business owners with sanctions instead of (or at least in addition to) deporting illegal workers. I would rather see illegal hiring disincentivized (or legal hiring incentivized) through economic sanctions rather than enforced through straight up head-busting, but like I said, I can't really think of a feasible method for achieving that--tax rebates per employee with valid SSN...? Tax rebates for volunteering for random ICE inspections or otherwise showing evidence of cooperation...? These ideas sound like they have just as much potential for overreach, abuse, and inefficiency, so maybe this idea is a non-starter too.

This thread was enlightening. I knew the immigration process was restrictive and lengthy, but I didn't know the door was pretty much shut altogether to the unskilled. I was under the impression it was more like a lottery where you wait for your number to come up. This makes loosening the policy even more of a no-brainer. It's hard to hold any legal or moral high ground if there isn't actually a legal or moral alternative.

Also, on that note, I've noticed that most of the arguments here are from a personal, individual perspective, e.g. "these are people who are hungry so how can you blame them", etc. I'm taking a more impersonal, policy-level or even philosophical view. I'm not trying to fault Pedro for sneaking in and sending money home to his family. I'm not saying illegal immigration necessarily makes you a bad person or that I wouldn't do the exact same thing. I'm sure a lot of illegals are compelled by powerful drives, e.g. survival of themselves and their children.

But it's an interesting (and age old) thought experiment. You know--would you steal the loaf of bread to save your starving family? When does an individual's unpleasant circumstances justify breaking the law or taking something from someone else*? There are plenty of homeless unemployed and others struggling to get by right here at home.

Is it okay for them to steal bread to support their families? Is it okay for them to steal bread from YOU and your family?

Is it okay for them to trespass by squatting in a foreclosed house? Is it okay for them to trespass by squatting in YOUR unused beach house?

Where is the line drawn?

*Of course, the debate is unsettled as to whether illegal immigration is actually taking anything from or otherwise harming anyone. At the very least, it's unfair to ask folks like Jacob to go through all that hassle if we look the other way for Pedro. And it's obviously unfair to the illegals themselves. Other negatives--burdening public systems, taking unskilled jobs, etc--are controversial but surely they are applicable in at least some cases.

It just seems like there's got to be a better way than essentially coercing folks to commit crime and then punishing them when they do. Especially since it seems like a given that crime begets more crime, and labeling people criminals makes them criminal. Just look at all the non-violent drug offenders who transform into hardened criminals in the prison system.

[jacob]

Consider the following thought experiment.

Suppose you could go to another country and easily be hired to do the same job you do now and be paid five times as much as you currently do. Mind you, this would be without approval from the authorities of said country and if they catch you, they will send you back.

To put it in perspective, if you're a software engineer and Utopia offers a $500,000/year salary given your two-year work experience as long as you make it across the border, would you attempt to go?

Those are the economic incentives.

[Chad]

@Chad: Well, you officially convinced me, at least as far as the border control issue. I would rather have an unprotected border than a federal government with the kind of power it would take to protect the border effectively. For the record, I was thinking more along the lines of drones and surveillance than just sniping folks as they cross, but even those capabilities would be dangerous enough if turned against regular citizens (albeit that's probably inevitable anyway).

Thanks, that's a nice compliment.

I understood you were thinking more along the lines of drones and sensors. I selected the East German border as it had a population with very limited freedom of movement (as opposed to North Korea, which is unbelievably locked down) and it has one of the most extreme borders in history.

You are correct on ICE. I had forgotten about them.

It just seems like there's got to be a better way than essentially coercing folks to commit crime and then punishing them when they do. Especially since it seems like a given that crime begets more crime, and labeling people criminals makes them criminal. Just look at all the non-violent drug offenders who transform into hardened criminals in the prison system.

One would hope there is a better way, but I'm not sure there is an easy or ideal way. Just as I don't think it's a great idea to try and stop it. I don't think it's a great idea to just throw the doors open. It seems like for most issues the answer isn't at the extremes, but in intelligent modifications of the middle.

[workathome]

Even though they can't stop drugs or terrorists, I'm glad they're making sure the Boy Scouts don't pull any dangerous shenanigans.

http://www.kcci.com/news/officer-points ... 96#!blhyoH

[Ego]

Vice Documentary released yesterday on immigration issues in the dairy industry of upstate New York.

Worst Job in New York: Immigrant America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXUdozfL7iM

[Riggerjack]

Charles Vonderheid with the Mid-Iowa Council Boy Scouts of America said Troop 11 learned a valuable lesson.

“We want to make sure they follow the rules. A Scout is a good citizen. It would be a great lesson in civics for that young man and that troop,” he said.

Yes. The lesson is that in the land of the free, home of the brave, petty bureaucratic regulations are enforced at gunpoint.

[Riggerjack]

I've mentioned this before, in another thread, but I was in El Paso during operation blockade.
http://www.cis.org/articles/1993/back993.html
The stated goal was "to stop illegal immigration within 10 miles of El Paso for 2 weeks" this took importing INS officers from other states, additional funding, and resulted in 3 INS officers being shot. They were apprehending around 100 immigrants per day at the air port, but the startling thing was the number of people who illegally commute across the border. That's right, they have jobs on one side, housing on the other, and cross illegally twice per day. I don't know if it's still like that, but it's something to think about for the "just secure the border" crowd. This one, 25 mile stretch couldn't be secured for two weeks.

[Riggerjack]

I think our border could be secured, but it would take a series of Argos drones (from the drone warfare thread) on LTA balloons, tethered by fiber optic lines, and linked to artillery fire control. But that ain't happening, and still wouldn't work near cities.
I'd rather see a robust guest worker program. Yet the D's are in debt to the unions, and the R's have a "theytukurjobs!" Faction in their base. So this can has been kicked for almost 50 years.

[tylerrr]

I've changed my mind. We should open up all borders to whoever wants to come...We all know white Americans should pay for their past sins of genocide anyway. Whitey is getting what he deserves. It feels better now to agree with most open-border posters on this topic. I feel more compassionate now. I am no longer a white racist because i want open borders and want millions more of non-English speaking, illegal immigrants to flood in and provide corporate slave labor. This is my confession to all of you.

[tylerrr]

@tylerr

If you are going to argue for any position on these forums then please do it in a mature manner. Smart people disagree all of the time but what they don't do is pout when others don't agree with them and they certainly don't denigrate the others that hold opposing views. It might be helpful to stop viewing these discussions as if there is a winner and a loser. Try viewing it as an opportunity to learn something you weren't aware of before the discussion began.

I think a smarter move for anybody that gets hammered on his views is to ask why that would be so. Your view may still be correct at the end of the day but at least you've made the attempt to at least understand where the other person may be coming from. And it forces one to critically examine their own thoughts and opinions. Sometimes this process can be quite enlightening to all party's involved; I know that I have reversed some of my thoughts after having to clarify some of my opinions.

This is a complex issue that can't be solved easily with a price that most Americans are willing to pay. Can't we all at least agree on that?

sorry, I couldn't resist being sarcastic.