Not supporting amnesty, but supporting letting people stay here legally

[CARLHAYDEN]

Also, what other offenses should not be enforced, as being inhumane?

Possession of recreational drugs, prostitution, victimless crimes in general.

Feel free to explain why entering the country illegally is comparable to murder, rape, robbery, etc.

Simple.

Illegal entrants (as opposed to legal entrants) have a high crime rate, including the offenses listed.  Now, I would like to reduce the offenses committed that I cited, but it seems you disagree.

[Franzl]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

I wasn't aware that being black was a crime, unlike illegally entering the country, which is a crime (I cited the United States Code section on that point).

So, would you please cited the code section which makes that an antecedent offense?

Otherwise, knock off the 'red herring' nonsense.

[Franzl]

So what? We could make being black a crime, couldn't we? Then we'd have gone one step further towards our goal of reducing crime.

[Ebowed]

Illegal entrants (as opposed to legal entrants) have a high crime rate, including the offenses listed.  Now, I would like to reduce the offenses committed that I cited, but it seems you disagree.

OK, but don't you see how that is circular reasoning?  I'm asking why illegal entry itself should be treated in such a harsh manner.  If the offenses that you listed are being committed, then by all means, prosecute on that basis.  The fact that illegal entrants are more likely to commit these offenses does not explain why it would be reasonable to deport all of them.  As Franzl notes, the idea that a group of people is more prone to criminal activity cannot justify wholesale persecution.

You are hiding behind legalistic divinity to suggest that these immigrants are inherently criminal, but the very notion that they could be granted a blanket amnesty would fix that immediately.  Am I to believe that you would then no longer have a problem with these people being within American borders?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Illegal entrants (as opposed to legal entrants) have a high crime rate, including the offenses listed.  Now, I would like to reduce the offenses committed that I cited, but it seems you disagree.

OK, but don't you see how that is circular reasoning?  I'm asking why illegal entry itself should be treated in such a harsh manner.  If the offenses that you listed are being committed, then by all means, prosecute on that basis.  The fact that illegal entrants are more likely to commit these offenses does not explain why it would be reasonable to deport all of them.  As Franzl notes, the idea that a group of people is more prone to criminal activity cannot justify wholesale persecution.

You are hiding behind legalistic divinity to suggest that these immigrants are inherently criminal, but the very notion that they could be granted a blanket amnesty would fix that immediately.  Am I to believe that you would then no longer have a problem with these people being within American borders?

Well, at least we have made some progress, but not much.

Now firstly, this may be a surprise to you, but people who violate one law, are more likely to violate others, for a number of reasons.

Secondly, there is nothing "harsh" about  removing those who illegally entered.   I merely wish to return them to the 'state" (double entendre intended) they were in prior to illegally entering the United States.  Its not like I'm proposing capital punishment, corporal punishment or even imprisonment.

Third, you seem to keep missing the concept of antecedent offense.  What you seem to miss is that you want to ignore one crime, and are surprised when another is committed.  While you may want to import criminals, I do not.

Fourth, how many amnesties do you propose?  We have had several over the past quarter of a century?  Or is the amnesty to be continuing and ongoing, to never end?

Finally, lets suppose, to give you an example, that we gave an amnesty to all burglars.  Would you have a problem with that?

[Ebowed]

You 'merely' wish to return these people to their countries of origin.  This means uprooting people who have established ties to their community.  You might not be proposing execution or imprisonment, but that hardly makes it reasonable.  There is a problem of consistency in law enforcement (of which you are well aware) which makes it inhumane to deport these people after they have been able to gain employment and start families within American borders.  I understand that your impetus to deport these people coincides with a desire for the enforcement of existing laws, but it is unavoidable that mass deportations would cause serious problems knowing, as we do, that so far these laws have not been consistently enforced.

Knowing, as we do, that a.) there have been 'several' amnesties and that b.) these laws are not being consistently enforced, can you at least acknowledge that it would be fair to consider changing these laws to make it easier for people to immigrate?  You appear to present deportation as the only potential response to this problem, but it is only one approach.

I don't see what your final question has to do with our discussion, as burglary has a direct negative impact in every instance.  Illegal entry does not.  The sort of crimes you seem to be worried about are directly correlated with lower incomes, and by restricting employment, educational, and assistance opportunities for these people you condemn them to permanent poverty.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Strawman.... Being black isn't illegal.  Being an illegal immigrant is.

[Franzl]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Strawman.... Being black isn't illegal.  Being an illegal immigrant is.

Irrelevant.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Strawman.... Being black isn't illegal.  Being an illegal immigrant is.

Irrelevant.

You're right... your post about black Americans was irrelevant.

[Franzl]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Strawman.... Being black isn't illegal.  Being an illegal immigrant is.

Irrelevant.

You're right... your post about black Americans was irrelevant.

This sounds so much like "I know you are but what am I?". Alright, though, if you enjoy Kindergarten rhetoric, who am I to complain?

[phk]

The real solution is having the United States sell guest worker permits and use the proceeds to expand the earned income tax credit for low-income Americans; guest workers will also pay an extra x% in income taxes that will provide them with a path to citizenship. The fees, surtaxes, and subsidies will lower the pre-tax reservation wage of natives and raise it for immigrants.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Actually, whites comit the most crimes. And most crimes aren't street crimes.

[Franzl]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Actually, whites comit the most crimes. And most crimes aren't street crimes.

That's pretty misleading. There are simply more whites around. Per capita numbers are what matter. (But obviously, as we've all been saying, none of these statistics say anything about individual people.)

[Ebowed]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Strawman.... Being black isn't illegal.  Being an illegal immigrant is.

What is with all of this circular reasoning?  Why do you even bother to participate in this discussion if you are just going to repeat the same pointless piece of information without engaging further?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Blacks also have a rather high crime rate. Getting rid of them would help as well.

Strawman.... Being black isn't illegal.  Being an illegal immigrant is.

Irrelevant.

You're right... your post about black Americans was irrelevant.

This sounds so much like "I know you are but what am I?". Alright, though, if you enjoy Kindergarten rhetoric, who am I to complain?

Well please explain how kicking blacks out of the country because they have higher crime rate tendencies is at all relevant.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You 'merely' wish to return these people to their countries of origin.  This means uprooting people who have established ties to their community.  You might not be proposing execution or imprisonment, but that hardly makes it reasonable.  There is a problem of consistency in law enforcement (of which you are well aware) which makes it inhumane to deport these people after they have been able to gain employment and start families within American borders.  I understand that your impetus to deport these people coincides with a desire for the enforcement of existing laws, but it is unavoidable that mass deportations would cause serious problems knowing, as we do, that so far these laws have not been consistently enforced.

Knowing, as we do, that a.) there have been 'several' amnesties and that b.) these laws are not being consistently enforced, can you at least acknowledge that it would be fair to consider changing these laws to make it easier for people to immigrate?  You appear to present deportation as the only potential response to this problem, but it is only one approach.

I don't see what your final question has to do with our discussion, as burglary has a direct negative impact in every instance.  Illegal entry does not.  The sort of crimes you seem to be worried about are directly correlated with lower incomes, and by restricting employment, educational, and assistance opportunities for these people you condemn them to permanent poverty.

Well, we're continuing to peel the onion.

First, in the lefty lexicon, enforcing a law lefties don't like is inhumane per se. 

Second, will laws on illegal entrance EVER be enforced?  Does anyone and everyone have a "right" to enter the United States whenever they want?

[Jacobtm]

Does anyone and everyone have a "right" to enter the United States whenever they want?

In fact, that's how it's always been.

The colonists who settled here simply showed up, certainly without an invitation.

The immigrants who came through Ellis Island didn't have visas or papers, they simply bought a boat ticket and were welcomed.

Hell, the Federal Government used to give away large plots of land to anyone who'd simply agree to come and tend it.

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Does anyone and everyone have a "right" to enter the United States whenever they want?

In fact, that's how it's always been.

The colonists who settled here simply showed up, certainly without an invitation.

The immigrants who came through Ellis Island didn't have visas or papers, they simply bought a boat ticket and were welcomed.

Hell, the Federal Government used to give away large plots of land to anyone who'd simply agree to come and tend it.

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

Thank you for honestly stating your opinion.

Your "history" is more than a little inaccurate.

You might want to look at the legislation from 1875 and more currant.

[dead0man]

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

Give me a list of successful (or "rich" if you prefer) countries that have a border policy you describe?  Or just one?  Or hell, even one that is just barely scratching by?

[Хahar 🤔]

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

Give me a list of successful (or "rich" if you prefer) countries that have a border policy you describe?  Or just one?  Or hell, even one that is just barely scratching by?

Switzerland and Austria are two countries that have no border controls at all.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

Give me a list of successful (or "rich" if you prefer) countries that have a border policy you describe?  Or just one?  Or hell, even one that is just barely scratching by?

Switzerland and Austria are two countries that have no border controls at all.

Nor quite:

The legal situation is rather complex, and controlled by treaty.

Essentially minimal id is required initially to enter from citizens of signatory nations.

Persons who wish to remain for more than 90 days generally need a visa.

Persons from nonsignatory nations have additional requirements

[Jacobtm]

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

Give me a list of successful (or "rich" if you prefer) countries that have a border policy you describe?  Or just one?  Or hell, even one that is just barely scratching by?

Many nations effectively have no border control. Try sneaking into a Latin American country. It's easy, and they're far less concerned about papers than we are. Any country in the EU represents a limited version of the idea, free movement of people. The United States itself is a version of this; the individual states don't maintain border checks or anything of the sort.

The United States, based on the 12 million illegal immigrants commonly estimated, actually has something resembling it. The difference is that low-skilled immigrants are let in, but high-skilled ones are kept out.

Combining Canada's and the United States' immigrant profile would give you some sort of idea what we might expect.

My idea would allow far more highly skilled people from around the world to immigrate here at will.

We really shoot ourselves in the foot keeping out so many smart people who'd love to live here, only letting in low-skilled people who smuggle themselves in trucks or walk through the desert.

[Franzl]

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

Give me a list of successful (or "rich" if you prefer) countries that have a border policy you describe?  Or just one?  Or hell, even one that is just barely scratching by?

Switzerland and Austria are two countries that have no border controls at all.

No more or less than any other Schengen country, right?

[CARLHAYDEN]

I don't see why we ought to exclude anyone from coming here for anything but criminal reasons. Meaning let in anyone who wants to come, just subject them to a criminal background check and that's it.

Give me a list of successful (or "rich" if you prefer) countries that have a border policy you describe?  Or just one?  Or hell, even one that is just barely scratching by?

Switzerland and Austria are two countries that have no border controls at all.

No more or less than any other Schengen country, right?

YES.