Well, well, well. A study from the University of Southern California’s CREATE program has found that by and large refugees and asylum-seekers from Central America are neither refugees nor asylum-seekers:
USC study looking at motivations of asylum seekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras finds that family ties and economic opportunities are important motivators; evidence on the influence of crime and violence is mixed.
Completing a 12-month study on immigration from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to the United States, researchers found that juvenile migrants are primarily motivated by economic opportunities and reunification with family members, while economics have motivated adult migrants. The study found mixed evidence on the impact of crime and violence on migration from these countries.
exactly as I’ve been saying. It also supports another point I’ve been making. A more effective, smarter way to enforce our laws is at the employer level rather than building a wall. Universal biometric ID, an improved e-Verify system, and increased even criminal penalties for knowing violation will help us enforce our laws and take the pressure off the border.
A more effective, smarter way to enforce our laws is at the employer level rather than building a wall.
We tried it that way for the last 30 years, and now, we can try it another way. The wall will take care of what that politicians will not. Problem solved.
Not with biometric ID or substantial penalties.
For many years, particularly in Texas, I offered to hire every latino who knocked on my door. I have been very satisfied with the work of Mexicans, Cubans, Salvadorans, Hondurans and Brazilians. They are the best who work in stone and tile, and among the few who will re-roof a Texas home in August. And they all “work like a Mexican,” as we said in Texas.
If the law is not enforced, substantial penalties do not matter. To get a job, you need a legal ID and a valid SS#, but somehow millions of people are able to get jobs using fraudulent documents.
which is why biometric IDs and improved e-Verify are necessary. A lot harder to falsify.
I think people are saying, it’s not that it can’t be done, (e-verify), but that it won’t be enforced.
The folks who talk of asking workers for documents are crazy. Since when does an Amerikan ask a kid or adult who shows up offering to rake, mow, hoe or shovel snow for documents? Or a hooker, for that matter!
Has biometrics been court tested? Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. So what does an employer do, buy a fingerprint reader and subscribe to a database? And the law says if no match, no employment?
o/t, but often discussed here.
The issue with an index fund being overweighted in a handful of stocks so that it retains its fidelity (see what I did there?) to the index has been noted previously. (market cap weighting) Jack Bogle, the so-called father of index investing (Vanguard), points out that it may reduce shareholder oversight of boards. I’m not so sure, as institutions are far more likely than individuals to make their grievances heard, or even engage in proxy fights. But in any event:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mutualfunds/investing-legend-jack-bogle-says-theres-a-big-problem-with-index-funds/ar-BBQjNmO?ocid=spartandhp