Remix.run Logo
dmix 2 days ago

> I can’t think of any other rationale.

Lack of real domestic enforcement would be an obvious one, so everything gets pushed to the border entry points.

fn-mote 2 days ago | parent [-]

They know who you are and where you work… how hard could it be to enforce rules?

Wait, what’s getting enforced here, anyway? They are getting a new visa, no? I don’t believe this rationale at all.

nomel a day ago | parent | next [-]

> how hard could it be to enforce rules?

See the recent events and pushback on immigration enforcement, to answer this, with whole cities (with their judicial system and police) refusing to participate, and governors condemning enforcement.

mrguyorama 20 hours ago | parent [-]

Those cities had very little problem when Obama was deporting millions.

Almost like what I have an actual problem with isn't deporting illegal immigrants, but armed thugs kidnapping citizens, harassing my neighbors, and murdering several citizens

Our police department hired a guy, did a background check, yup, he can be here legally. So of course ICE tracks him down and abducts him for a month. That drove our sheriff, who is not fucking liberal, to basically say "Uh, what the fuck, how can you possibly be this incompetent?"

If you have actual evidence of some kind that a human being does not have their paperwork in order, the correct thing is to give them a summons, get a judge to declare them not legal, and deport them. Very simple.

If your complaint is that too many immigrants just come back, then we should try enforcing the law against hiring illegal immigrants which we put on the books under Reagan, 50 years ago, and have never enforced because it hurts the profits of well connected Agriculture industry people.

Why hasn't Trump done that? Why hasn't Trump done the one thing everyone involved has suggested for decades, which is known to be the primary reason immigrants come here? Why did Trump tell Republicans to reject the Boarder bill proposed by democrats in 2024? One which absolutely would have provided more funding for the boarder?

nomel 18 hours ago | parent [-]

> Those cities had very little problem when Obama was deporting millions.

Incorrect. They were "sanctuary" cities during Obama, as well.

> the correct thing is to give them a summons, get a judge to declare them not legal, and deport them.

Correct, and this is a popular right wing perspective. You should look into this more. These sanctuary cities and states are specifically against this. They release people with deportation orders back into the public, and ban city and state employees from helping. See "California sanctuary state laws" and "sanctuary city list".

> Almost like what I have

This isn't relevant.

15155 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> They know who you are and where you work

Most visas don't permit their holder to work.

> Wait, what’s getting enforced here, anyway?

The visa holder is forced to expend nominal financial resources and time in their home country (where they agreed they would return to.) Most people can't afford to maintain a facade of residency or two actual residences (and those who can aren't the intended targets of this type of restriction.)

aveao a day ago | parent [-]

You do not need to do it in your "home country" at all, though, is the thing. People plan vacations around appointments they manage to land for this, in countries they want to go for their summer holidays.

Additionally, it doesn't really do that either, you don't need a valid visa (only valid status) if you don't plan to leave and re-enter US, so this mainly forces people to stay within US rather than going elsewhere for visiting family, vacation and whatnot. I'd not be surprised if the net effect was less time/money spent in "home country".

achierius a day ago | parent | prev [-]

No, not necessarily. Sometimes visas are rejected. Unless you're talking about giving everyone who gets a visa a green card?