What does this election mean for immigrants?

[Greg S]

Well, technically everyone who enters from Mexico illegally is a criminal, and he certainly wanted to put a stop to that. He was also not to keen on immigrants from Muslim countries. For instance:
"When I’m elected I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there’s a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies until we fully understand how to end these threats. After a full …
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
And by the way we have no choice. After a full and partial and long — really long overdue security assessment we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America."

After his election, there was Executive order 13769, replaced by EO 13780 (for reasons of constitutionality, as I recall):
"Executive Order 13769 lowered the number of refugees to be admitted into the United States in 2017 to 50,000, suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days, suspended the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, directed some cabinet secretaries to suspend entry of those whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law for 90 days, and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) listed these countries as Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen. Iraq was also included until it was dropped following sharp criticism from the Iraqi government and promises of improved vetting of Iraqi citizens in collaboration with the Iraqi government.[6][7] More than 700 travelers were detained, and up to 60,000 visas were "provisionally revoked".[8]
(of course, from Wikipedia)

I recall all of this kerfuffle very clearly because my friend was dating a Syrian refugee who was about to get sent back, so they got married lickety-split. Other of my muslim friends who were from the countries mentioned (or other countries with muslim populations) were afraid to leave the country, even for business, thinking they might not get back in. Also, I knew some young people who were in the 'Dreamers' status, who thought they might get deported to countries they didn't even remember. (discussion, that was also overturned by the court).

Maybe I just remember it because I have a bunch of immigrant friends who were in a panic.

Exactly what I was going to say.

 

[sergio]

I know he mentioned "criminals" entering the US illegally from Mexico, but I never got the impresion that he was or is anti-immigrant overall,

especially since he has employed hundreds (if not thousands) of immigrants, and still seems to be married to one.

PS: Yes, I've heard about The WALL:

He spoke about illegal immigrants who committed violent acts which some interpreted as anti-immigrant however I think the term 'anti-immigrant' needs to be defined. If one believes that the US border should be open, then Trump is 'anti-immigrant' and his successor is pro-immigrant. Other than that he did not advocate cutting off immigration processed in a legal way. He may, however, have made the legal process more difficult.

 

[mageesa]

He spoke about illegal immigrants who committed violent acts which some interpreted as anti-immigrant however I think the term 'anti-immigrant' needs to be defined. If one believes that the US border should be open, then Trump is 'anti-immigrant' and his successor is pro-immigrant. Other than that he did not advocate cutting off immigration processed in a legal way. He may, however, have made the legal process more difficult.

If the future President of Argentina makes the legal process of immigrating more difficult, that would qualify in my book; and that's what I was wondering about.

If he gives rousing speeches describing how foreigners are “poisoning the blood of our country”, if he suggests shooting illegal immigrants, and that speech is taken up by his followers, and this sort of rhetoric leads to targeted violence, well. I would absolutely call him anti-immigrant, even if he's fine with the 'right kind' of immigrant.

It would certainly be discouraging if I was the 'wrong kind'!

 

[wrangler]

It will mean nothing for immigrants because the status quo will remain. Massa will become president.

 

[sergio]

If the future President of Argentina makes the legal process of immigrating more difficult, that would qualify in my book; and that's what I was wondering about.

If he gives rousing speeches describing how foreigners are “poisoning the blood of our country”, if he suggests shooting illegal immigrants, and that speech is taken up by his followers, and this sort of rhetoric leads to targeted violence, well. I would absolutely call him anti-immigrant, even if he's fine with the 'right kind' of immigrant.

It would certainly be discouraging if I was the 'wrong kin

 

[Reply Guy]

If Massa wins, it will be the same. Although bad for the majority of the people - much of the wealthy like it. They know how to play the game and profit from it.

If Milei wins, no one really knows. People are fearful of the unknown. Lots of the young and working class are voting for Milei. They have nothing to lose.

If Milei wins and Argentina adopts the dollar and inflation stabilizes it will probably be more expensive for expats.

 

[Big Swifty]

If illegal immigrants are criminals solely for crossing the border illegally, then speeders are criminals solely for driving over the speed limit, since in both instances an illegal act was committed.

Me, I'd say someone with a criminal record in their own country is a criminal, and if they cross a border illegally it'd be accurate to brand them a criminal. Someone with no criminal record crossing a border without papers isn't quite the same and branding them as "criminals" is misleading and perhaps even intentionally demonizing. Unless one is consistent with that logic and also brands and mainly identifies someone caught driving over the speed limit as a criminal.

 

[mc kenna]

If illegal immigrants are criminals solely for crossing the border illegally, then speeders are criminals solely for driving over the speed limit, since in both instances an illegal act was committed.

Me, I'd say someone with a criminal record in their own country is a criminal, and if they cross a border illegally it'd be accurate to brand them a criminal. Someone with no criminal record crossing a border without papers isn't quite the same and branding them as "criminals" is misleading and perhaps even intentionally demonizing. Unless one is consistent with that logic and also brands and mainly identifies someone caught driving over the speed limit as a criminal.

I wish the world was that simple, so , without permission i'll be coming to live in your living room , i'll come in thru the window as i don't like doors, also, i prefer lots of beef in my diet and please don't disturb me early in the morning or pretend i pitch in with rent, oh my credentials you might ask? i have no criminal record so you can't treat me like a criminal. and i have intentions of one day having your job but being paid under the table for half of what you get paid now.
maybe speeders are...... not so good either??

 

[redlobster]

Someone with no criminal record crossing a border without papers isn't quite the same and branding them as "criminals" is misleading and perhaps even intentionally demonizing. Unless one is consistent with that logic and also brands and mainly identifies someone caught driving over the speed limit as a criminal.

The Russians have a proverb: 'Not caught - not a thief!' It is an interesting type of mentality. Quite self-encouraging, I would say.

 

[Big Swifty]

I wish the world was that simple, so , without permission i'll be coming to live in your living room , i'll come in thru the window as i don't like doors, also, i prefer lots of beef in my diet and please don't disturb me early in the morning or pretend i pitch in with rent, oh my credentials you might ask? i have no criminal record so you can't treat me like a criminal. and i have intentions of one day having your job but being paid under the table for half of what you get paid now.
maybe speeders are...... not so good either??

The ironic thing when it comes to illegal immigration in the US is that it's primarily driven by US industry who wants a source of cheap labor, so I wonder if you consider and would label as criminal all of the industries, individual companies, and small business owners who rely on the cheap labor undocumented immigrants provide to also be criminals since it's illegal to hire someone not legally able to work in the US, and should they be rounded up and imprisoned as well? Simple supply and demand. If they didn't hire undocumented immigrants, people wouldn't immigrate for jobs. When the US economy is strong, immigration increases. When it slows immigration decreases.

And don't forget the politicians who are primarily funded and owned by those described above and how they play their part by passing laws favorable to those who want a cheap source of labor that can be more easily be exploited with threats of I.C.E.. For example, with NAFTA the US govt. gave farmers subsidies/welfare so they could undercut the prices of Mexican corn farmers. Mexican food producers stopped buying more expensive domestically produced corn and started buying cheaper US corn. Average Mexican farm workers (not criminals) who love their family and God as much as you do suddenly were thrown out of work. Their jobs were outsourced. So these family loving, hard workers left their family behind to go to where their jobs were outsourced to. Nobody wants to have to do that, but when it comes down to feeding your family you do what you have to do.

The facts show that illegal immigration increased after NAFTA passed. But I understand. It's easier to blame some poor immigrant who suddenly lost his job, had to leave his family behind, and call him a criminal than it is to dig a little deeper and see what the real source of increased illegal immigration really is and blame those truly responsible for encouraging it. But the responsible have a lot of $ and own politicians, so it's no surprise.

First chart only goes to year 2000. Bottom graph shows the steep increase and goes to 2013. Since it's not labeled I'm providing the link to the source, a study titled "Immigration Trends After 20 Years of nafta."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1870355016300052