The real issue is it doesn't matter what you do; the problem isn't solvable in a way that would appease ardent opponents of immigration. People who have lived here for 5, 10, 15 years aren't going anywhere of their own accord. After that long, this is their home. And, there's no way to find such people and deport them without (a) spending a ton of money by setting up a massive government bureaucracy and (b) committing gross violations of civil rights. It's a total non-starter from a legal standpoint and from a political standpoint.
A
ag-man
Guest
Two questions
1.) Since when is America worried about spending a ton of money?
2.) Should illegals have rights?
I say round them up and ship them home. Why should America let them in, or let them stay? Other countries don't go for that crap, why should we?
"Too f'ing bad" ignores the realities of the situation. It's not a real viable solution.
"Round them up and ship them home" is meaningless banter that ignores the impossibility of what it would take to do that. How do you find 11 million people? What Federal police force are you going to use to do this? What court system, jail system, etc. has the capacity to do this? How do you not violate the rights of many American citizens as a part of a nationwide dragnet that is looking for foreigners? What do you do with industries like farming? Etc.
America is worried about it now, especially when the party pushing it is allergic to funding their spending priorities.
You're considering the wrong group in #2 - what about the rights of people legally in the country? The actions it would take to track down millions of immigrants in the US would almost certainly require a number of violations of the civil rights of American citizens
Last edited:
This is why Trump is doing well, in a nutshell. he sells a solution that people lap up. It sounds great. It's totally unfeasible, but it makes for a great sound bite.
Look, if there were an actual way to deport 11 million people, I would consider it. It would at least be an option about which you could have an opinion; it wouldn't be inherently right or wrong. But, there's absolutely no way to do so. There's no point in discussing it. It's quite ridiculous when people and politicians pretend otherwise. People who sell it as a viable option are making it clear that they are detached from reality.
Last edited:
On a different topic, yes, the monied interests in the R party generally support immigration, which means that the R party will never actually do anything significant beyond what is being done already.
The unspoken truth is that an R president in 2016 not named Trump would have a border enforcement policy that looks very similar to Obama (who has cranked up the deportation machine and has presided over a major increase in spending on border security). They'll dial back the DREAMer stuff, but they aren't going to build a wall, and they aren't going to put troops in cities looking for people to deport.
And, let's be clear on another thing: what we do with people who are here is a separate issue from border enforcement. The wall is a stupid gimmick of an idea, but it's not stupid to limit the amount of unintended immigration of unskilled people.
Cost is a bogus arguement. A substantial fine for every illegal employed would pretty much send them all packing. What company would employ an illegal if it cost them 1 million per? Anyone left could be caught by schools, hospitals, police, etc.
You guys always worry about civil rights of those who have none in this country.
This is probably the only issue I agree with Trump on but it might be enough to get him elected.
A
ag-man
Guest
It is not meaningless banter, and it is not impossible.
We can find what stall a sick cow was born in 3 years after the fact. We can drone someone to death on the other side of the world while setting at a computer screen, and you are here to tell me we can't find 11 MILLION PEOPLE in plain sight. Your argument is weak.
I think Bogey answered the questions pretty well in above post. We can send them back, and we can build a wall, and we can stop them from coming in.
Our weak kneed politicians won't, but we could.
elected? No. The polls on his immigration positions are a disaster in a general election setting. The RNC knows this and it's tried to soften the rhetoric since 2012. It didn't work.
The R position, if anything, is a gift to the D party - they don't have to be as good on other issues, and they don't have to actually deliver on immigration in a world where the other party runs on xenophobia.
Last edited:
There are already major fines for employing undocumented immigrants. Guess what? They're still here.
Cost is most certainly not a bogus argument. When you talk about a program that would cost hundreds of billions, it's going to get attention.
Civil rights matter because unconstitutional enforcement actions get destroyed in the courts. See Arizona v. United States (2012). It's basically impossible to design a system that would deport the vast majority of illegal immigrants while complying with Federal law.
Let's take your drone example - it's instructive.
Why haven't we drone attacked all of the members of ISIS? Why haven't we gotten the head of ISIS? Why did it take so long to find Bin Laden? Etc. The answers to the questions help explain why your proposals would never work:
- It's not like there is a registry of these people to consult
- There's nothing specific about these targets which makes them stand out from others just by looking at them or listening to one phone call. For example, plenty of legal immigrants and citizens speak foreign languages, etc.
- The scale of the problem is too huge to feasibly manage
- It's still not that hard to exist in America with limited touchpoints to the system and to use someone else's papers. Plenty of citizens don't have bank accounts, own material property, they work mostly cash only jobs, etc. The same is true in the Middle East - it's not like you have to register with ISIS; there are plenty of people living in their territory who use cell phones, own guns, etc.
- We are unwilling to accept collateral damage it would take to clear everyone
It's a lot easier to enforce the border - you can put up barriers and controls that significantly restrict access to the country at a cost that is acceptable. It's much harder to do so once people are in.
In practice, our immigration enforcement policy is EXACTLY like the drone program - we get more and more people caught in our dragnet, but it's impossible to get the vast majority of people because there's no way to easily identify and track everyone.
Last edited:
The kick them out caucus is a very good example of why I don't vote R. The R party used to be the party that was more in the real world. The Ds overreached and expected the government to be able to fix more than it could while sometimes ignoring the other consequences of their laws.
Now, you get proposals like this from the R party - a massive government bureaucracy that will fail to do what is intended at tremendous cost with tremendous other consequences and burdens for the general public.
This is the antithesis of what the R Party is supposed to stand for.
Now, you get proposals like this from the R party - a massive government bureaucracy that will fail to do what is intended at tremendous cost with tremendous other consequences and burdens for the general public.
This is the antithesis of what the R Party is supposed to stand for.
A
ag-man
Guest
You make several valid points I respect.
Enforcing the border is one.
The targets don't stand out.
The scale of the problem is huge.
Points I disagree with.
Easy to exist in America with limited touchpoints is BS. I have to give my SS# for EVERYTHING I do. I call bullish!t. Medical care, license to drive, buy beer, get a loan, buy a car, enroll in school, write a check, apply for credit anywhere, etc,etc. these people would not be that hard to find.
Second, I am willing to accept the collateral damage......I am tired of these people breaking the law and using our resources .
Why are you siding with lawbreakers NM ?
The average illegal immigrant isn't doing most of the things you mention. they aren't using the banking system. They don't have a drivers license unless they live in certain states. etc.
I think you vastly overestimate how much the SS number is used by all Americans. not everyone uses the banking system.
A lot of immigrants don't drive. They get one guy who drives all of them around to their job. That same guy has the apartment lease. Etc.
And there's no requirement that you give your SS number to enroll in school. They cannot deny services to a resident under the law. Etc
I think you vastly overestimate how much the SS number is used by all Americans. not everyone uses the banking system.
A lot of immigrants don't drive. They get one guy who drives all of them around to their job. That same guy has the apartment lease. Etc.
And there's no requirement that you give your SS number to enroll in school. They cannot deny services to a resident under the law. Etc
A
ag-man
Guest
I agree cow,
Let me correct myself,
You do have to show ID,
Once again, something an illegal should not have.
Better ?
A
ag-man
Guest
Still siding with the lawbreakers I see !!
Do you actually think I was able to enroll my son in school without a SS number ?
The fact that they asked doesn't mean you have to give them one. There is plenty of case law on this. They are not allowed to deny admission on this basis.
You need it to get loans and scholarships for college. But they cannot not enroll you in k-12 because you do not have or will not provide the SSN
If the fines aren't working, they aren't high enough.
A couple fines of a million per would greatly reduce the need for manpower to enforce.
As the law stands now. Changing the law would eliminate that "hurdle".
You seem to think that big companies would allow some sort of fine to be put in law. If they can lobby to keep from being taxed there is no way they would allow any law that would allow them to be fined to pass. Follow the money!!!!!!!!!
You know why they don't do that? Lots of sectors of our economy rely on legal and illegal immigration. That's a cold hard fact. If fines like that started to be handed out, Silicon Valley would buy the politicians and force them to grant amnesty.
I never said it would be done. You guys said it COULDN'T be done, cost too much etc. I solved the cost problem showing that it COULD be done.
Didn't the nazis do the same thing to the Jews back in the day? Interesting who is doing the propaganda these days.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Ky3 story tonight at 10 over Athletic governing bodies.- Latest: The Last Black Man In Missouri