1) You don't deport them, you don't ignore them, you document them. Then you let them live their lives. They're people, not a mold outgrowth that needs culling.
2) Check those stats a bit more closely. The vast majority of "deportations" were people turned away at the border.
Would you support deporting people who are criminals? Or have no intention of ever working and just want to live off various welfare programs? Trying to find some common ground here.
Nope. Access to food, water, shelter, and freedom of movement are fundamental human rights. I'm not a proponent of executing useless eaters. If you commit a crime with a prison sentence then you serve that sentence where you committed the crime.
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position.
So if China or some other country decided to send 10 million people here for whatever reason, you think our official policy should be to welcome then in and provide them food, shelter, etc...?
What about 100 million people?
Should they also be given citizenship and right to vote in addition to food/shelter?
The only issue would be logistics. Getting supporting infrastructure and housing set up. But yeah, ultimately. More hands, more consumers. Why wouldn't we want as many citizens as possible, we certainly have the land for it.
I wonder in such a case if more populous countries like India or China could in theory send over 100 million+ people to our country over the course of a decade, and then once those people are citizens, legally vote for the US to be annexed by China, etc..
You could conquer a country without a single shot fired.
"These people are akin the mold growing upon a rotting city-state economy. They have to be removed." --our poster
"humanity suffers today under Jewish parasitism" --Adolf Hitler
It is this fake injury or mis-assignment of blame for real harm that serves as justification for actual crimes against humanity be they at CEDOT or Dachau
This is disgusting hyperbole. Nazis killed millions of innocent people; a nation enforcing border laws by asking illegals to leave or removing them when they don't is not that.
We sent people who committed no crimes to a foreign concentration camp in a country that they aren't from and have killed several including citizens.
Our present admin holds that it can detain anyone it merely asserts is illegal without trial or any due process and ship them to such camps or hold them domestically indefinitely in fetid slums that if we fill with the millions they want picked up will become death camps due to illness, climate, privation, lack of medical care.
They have variously called for imprisoning and even executing law makers who speak up, shooting protesters, killing them and shutting down journalists who run negative press.
They did commit a crime by crossing the border illegally. Illegals are free to leave the country on their own and not deal with any of this, in fact they are paid to do so. The idea that removing people who entered America illegally and sending them back is the same as systematically exterminating an entire race of humans is so dangerous and makes any discussion with people who think like you such a waste of time. It's rhetoric like yours that encourage people like the Tyler Robinsons or that sniper who attacked the ice facility.
A crime against the citizens like robbery not a civil wrong like overstaying their visa. We have a different interest in enforcing one vs the other which I think you know.
You are suggesting we can't call out what is actually happening in case the proud boys running around kidnapping and murdering people get hurt as if people will be inspired to hurt them because of online rhetoric and not because of the kidnapping and murder.
Want to keep ICE from getting hurt? Roll back enforcement to 2010 norms and start rolling in greater penalties from hurtful to ruinous for employee illegals with 5 years in jail for all management/HR/accounting who lie about it.
Start at 10% of payroll paid to illegal labor increasing to 1000% over whatever timeline would allow companies to transition from illegal labor.
Making it economical to hire illegal labor with a slap on the wrist or no penalty then punishing laborers for adapting over decades to this situation is insane.
What was the reasoning Hitler used to deport Jews and other "undesirables" to Polish concentration camps? Was it legal?
If so, maybe we shouldn't try to equate "What is legal/possible" with "what is moral/good". It can be legal and possible, and still very inhumane and evil. The Nazis prove that, don't they?
> and sending them back
We didn't "send them back". We sent them to a third place. A very bad place. Why are you ignoring that when the person you are replying to was specifically mentioning it?
> It's rhetoric like yours that encourage people like the Tyler Robinsons or that sniper who attacked the ice facility.
There is absolutely zero evidence of this. Tyler could have a very specific grievance with Charlie Kirk's rhetoric without being motivated by other people calling Trump and MAGA Nazis or Facists.
> 1) You don't deport them, you don't ignore them, you document them. Then you let them live their lives. They're people, not a mold outgrowth that needs culling.
I don't think that's a policy that would get majoritarian support in the US. The only people who can and should get deported are those who are not already not authorized to be here. If you don't deport them, it's functionally equivalent to an open-borders policy. Do you want more MAGA? Because open-borders is how you get more MAGA.
What you're proposing is also roughly analogous to a policy of not evicting squatters. If someone breaks into your house and decides to start living in one of your bedrooms, are you going to want them out or give them a key? The squatter is a person too, not a mold outgrowth that needs culling.
> Pretending that immigrants are the underlying cause of every societal failure is how you get MAGA. Enabling that big lie bolsters it.
What are you going to do, win elections by lecturing everyone about how they're wrong and they need to think just like you? People thought the Biden administration's immigration policy was too lax, and that was a major contributing cause to the second Trump term.
Deporting people who are in the country illegally is a no brainer. If you don't want that, get the law changed. Until then, it's not wrong to deport them.
Now, that doesn't mean deportation should be the only or even the main method of immigration enforcement (personally, I like the idea of putting more burden on employers).
> And I don't think I can enumerate the ways in which an occupied house are different from a country and unsuitable for the metaphor you're trying.
Oh of course, it's always too different if you want it to be. That way, you can continue to feel righteous.
> Deporting people who are in the country illegally is a no brainer. If you don't want that, get the law changed. Until then, it's not wrong to deport them.
Enjoy this little cognitive dissonance:
You could also change the law make them legals eg. after X years of work, no criminal record and citizenship tests.
This would completely disable the current ICE gestapo and would have prevent soo much suffering. But i can imagine what you must be thinking now: But they came here illegally, this is harm to our society enough.
> What are you going to do, win elections by lecturing everyone about how they're wrong and they need to think just like you?
I'm partial to the strategy of selling voters on a set of policies that will improve their lives and address their problems. Unfortunately neither party in my country is keen on that idea.
> People thought the Biden administration's immigration policy was too lax, and that was a major contributing cause to the second Trump term.
People thought that once they were told to think that. It's an easy sell to blame everything wrong on the scary dirty foreigners. When people are dissatisfied populism wins, regardless of whether the talking points are rooted in reality. The responsible thing to do is try to get people on board with populist ideas that help rather than hurt.
> I'm partial to the strategy of selling voters on a set of policies that will improve their lives and address their problems.
It's a seductive idea, but it's the attitude of an authoritarian technocrat. However, the US is supposed to be a representative democracy, which requires being sensitive to the problems voters have, as voters see them. And that's probably a big part of Trump's actual appeal. My understanding is at his rallies and in his rhetoric, he gave the appearance of being responsive to many concerns that had been willfully ignored or denied for a long time (for instance: free trade dogma, which destroyed a lot of things and insisted people be satisfied with the easily-quantified cheap junk they were being given).
> People thought that once they were told to think that.
Don't pretend your thoughts are any more independent than those of the people you're othering.
> There is broad support for Dreamers. It's not as simple as deport everyone here illegally and the public seems to understand that.
What the GGP was advocating was much broader than that. What's sympathetic about the Dreamers is the non-consensual nature of their position (their parents took them here) and many of them have little to no connection to the country they'd be deported to.
1. Entering a country without proper documentation is a crime. Therefore all "undocumented immigration" is by definition criminal.
2. Removing criminals is paramount to a safe society and a justice system that is respected.
3. "Documenting them and letting them live" undermines legal immigrants who likely worked very hard to integrate culturally, establish themselves, and do the proper LEGAL paperwork. These legal immigrants have stringent reporting requirements, need to be careful about even minor crimes (excessive speeding tickets even!) etc. How is your proposal remotely fair to them?
I don't understand why this is a controversial opinion at all. I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out. A country without border control is NOT a country.
> "Documenting them and letting them live" undermines legal immigrants who likely worked very hard to integrate culturally, establish themselves, and do the proper LEGAL paperwork.
It's a shame those people had to work so hard to be treated like their neighbors. That's not a reason to deny others that treatment though.
> I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out.
Yeah they tend to skew pretty reactionary. That tends to sort itself out after a generation or two.
> A country without border control is NOT a country.
I didn't say we shouldn't have border security. In what universe is a goon squad going door to door checking for undesirables "border control"?
2) Check those stats a bit more closely. The vast majority of "deportations" were people turned away at the border.