Oh no, they mean illegal immigrant - in this case, someone who violated the law to make more money. Got it.
Every time I see the term "undocumented immigrant" I am horrified at how easily people will thoughtlessly toss away the rule of law to serve their own self-indulgent empathy.
Mexico today has more GDP/capita than New Zealand did in 1990. There's no justification for encouraging the human trafficking and dangerous cross-desert trips (often ending in death or rape or robbery) this way. Immigration should be orderly and safe.
If someone wants everybody on Earth to have free access to America, they should campaign to make that the law, and face the real consequences. This "let it be illegal but keep the border-jumpers as our empathy pets" stuff is self-indulgent and self-defeating on so many levels. Ugh.
The analogy is not entirely facetious: immigration is--like pot--a crime with real economic benefit, and where any negative externalities are exacerbated by knee-jerk prohibition. Take as an example wage depression due to immigration. The less that undocumented immigrants can report unfair labor practices, the more they are likely to be exploited for extra-depressive wages.
The same dynamic is present, for example, when it comes to prostitution (also a crime). If you punish the prostitute instead of the john, prostitutes are more likely to be abused, exacerbating the negative consequences of prostitution.
(Again, the analogy goes deeper: the answer to immigration is the same as prostitution or drugs or whatever: _tax the externalities_. If you really think that some honduran woman scrubbing toilets for less than minimum wage at a motel 6 is "bad for america", then you should jus _tax her_).
One other comment: you seem quite upset about the use of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal." There are Really Good reasons why the first term is preferred:
1. Not all undocumented immigrants are criminals. The only criminal act is crossing the border without permission. Overstaying a visa, or coming here as a child, is emphatically not criminal. Yes, it's a deportable condition, but not a criminal one. Undocumented seems to be a better description of that situation--and unless someone has been tried, how do you know? 2. Semantics matter. Undocumented immigrants have rights, just like all people in America. To refer to a human as as being "illegal" anchors the situation in a way which makes it easier to treat them in a way where those rights are violated, and _no one cares_. For example, alleged illegal immigrants are not offered counsel in immigration courts. Flagrant violation of their sixth amendment rights. It somehow seems to be ok in the public consciousness because they are "illegal."
I'm not advocating for open borders, or for amnesty or whatever. I'm just asking you to think, critically, about the situation, and leave your mood affiliation aside.
Regarding medical marijuana, I believe the right approach is to change the law, not to flaunt the law. And we've seen that already in many states legalizing marijuana.
Regarding the use of the word illegal, it is the proper legal terminology. An alien is classified as either legal or illegal, depending on their status to enter and stay in the US. The legal/illegal refers to their alien status, not the person.
And this ties into the third point. The reason immigration court doesn't provide counsel is just as you've stated--it is a civil matter, not criminal. Right to attorney doesn't apply to civil cases. On the converse, make immigration law violations a criminal act, and the accused has right to counsel.
Unless the "undocumented" are actually not doing anything, they are most likely committing many other crimes including tax fraud, identity theft, tax evasion.
"Undocumented" is a euphemism. Illegal alien is the correct legal term. And let's stop using "immigrant" to refer to illegal aliens. That is an insult to the thousands of legal immigrants.
Undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. Let's not legitimize illegal immigration by wrapping it into benign terminology.
Not arguing for or against anything, just putting some numbers out that I recently learned, and found surprising myself. Should be an easy google-verify if you're interested.
With immigration, there is a situation where (at least in my opinion) it is not morally wrong for anyone to illegally immigrate to the US for economic reasons, yet it may be that the US should not allow unfettered immigration. It is true that in some cases a behavior can be morally wrong only because it is illegal (e.g., violating corporate disclosure requirements), but making immigration illegal is not enough to make it wrong because most illegal immigrants have compelling reasons to immigrate and are not doing any clear harm (not shooting border guards to get across, for instance).
It is true that, as a general principle, we are better off if we can arrange that only morally wrong behaviors are outlawed because that somehow makes people more respectful of the law, but in the case of immigration, it isn't possible without allowing unfettered immigration, and that may be too high a price to pay.
What we can do to improve alignment is to allow anyone who manages to come to the US and remain for a certain period of time (say five years), and perhaps to meet some assimilation targets (like learning English), to stay and ultimately become a citizen. Then it will be more reasonable for law enforcement to aggressively pursue illegal/undocumented people, and the "rule of law" can be stronger.
This is dangerous, in my opinion. It gives foreigners an incentive to come here illegally and stay for a long time, during which they work lower-class jobs for well under market value. That displaces American workers, lowers wages, and gives the foreigners a reason to come here instead of working on building industries in their home country, thus maintaining the issues that lead them to want to come here in the first place.
??? What an oddly specific comment...and I don't think it helps your point.
That's a crime.
How is she get SEC licenses as someone who has admitted to fraud? Why would Goldman not catch her fraud during their due diligence when hiring her? She's being trusted with financial instruments as someone with a flagrant disregard for the law?
She should be deported. If she's any good, she can trade derivatives on Goldman's Mexico City desk.
For those here that would defend her -- are you suggesting we only follow laws we agree with?
> To obtain a Series 63 license, the applicant must pass an exam to demonstrate knowledge of state securities acts and related rules and regulations, as well as knowledge of ethical practices and fiduciary obligations.
By blindly following all laws we would still have slavery; holocaust would have become acceptable; etc...
We should follow ethics, not some texts.
Whether its Google or Goldman in todays competitive world smart competent people are the premium. Why should they send her to Mexico City if she can make 10-20x more for them sitting at the centre of the action.
Immigration is regulated for a good reason. If we allowed free resettlement from Mexico what do you think would happen?
The US would be flooded by 100 million people that don't speak English, know almost nothing about our country, have little or no marketable skills, and are therefore wholly dependent on government support.
It's better to have a controlled amount of people enter to help them assimilate without a huge government burden. Letting in too many low skilled immigrants is bad for US citizens and the immigrants already here. We've already seen huge wage suppression for low skilled jobs.
There's already clear paths to the US for skilled immigrants that speak English because they're not a burden on government funds. The US is not a charity, the government exists to benefit US citizens. Letting in unskilled immigrants that don't speak English does not benefit US citizens so the government has no business making it a priority.
However, it would have been exceptionally easy to get the required visas. Once she was accepted into university, she can apply for an F student visa. It's practically guaranteed for this visa to be granted -- there's no limit to the number of admitted foreign students in the US.
Then, with good grades and an acceptance to Goldman Sachs (which she got), she would have had little trouble getting a work visa. I know plenty of people who have done that.
It's not necessary to go through the 10+ year process to become a citizen in order to be able to study and work in the US. And getting the visas would have been far less stressful and allowed her to travel to see family in Mexico.
For any non immigration visa you have to prove you will leave the country after you finish school (= visa expires). If she is here illegally that's hard to prove. You also have to prove you can financially sustain yourself here.
