Are deportation laws, inherently racist?

[weixiaobao]

Each countries have a different immigration and population problem.

I really want to know people's opinions about some of these countries.

-India for example abolished birth right citizen ship in 2004 because they are overpopulated and of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.  Within the Indian context, is India racist?

-There are a large wave of Chinese immigration into various countries in Africa.  Many felt that it feel like an invasion of the continent.  Sometimes Africans felt they can't compete in term of jobs or sales.  I meant some Chinese came to Africa to be farmers?  Is such sentiment racist?

-On the other hands, China also faced a new illegal (I meant undocumented) immigration from Africa.  I heard the problem are into the million.  The Chinese government actually give monetary reward  for people who give info regarding illegal immigrants so they can be deported.

Many in the USA criticize Trump for "initially" saying that the USA should take in refugee.  And boy, some conflating Syria with Mexico and said that Mexico is actually a war zone due to the war on drug (not like Mexican can migrate to nicer back of Mexico?.  I meant places like Detroit have crime rate way worst than Mexico as a whole.  And using Detroit as reason to migrate down in Mexico?)

-But in term of refugee.  North Korea sucks and North Korean desperately try to escape.  So China have a North Korean illegal immigration.  And hence, they build stronger border fence, out post, and have patrols to keep the Koreans out.  So are the Chinese being racist?  Well apparently, they did have black protesters in China calling the Chinese laws racist.  So I guess it is racist to some.

-I will wait and see how Europe, especially countries like Greece will deal with the migrant crisis.

I could have going into more nuance stuffs about other aspects of criticisms on Trump.  But criticizing him on whether or not his plan will be effective and the cost of it is fine (have to balance with hidden costs and or benefits of change it bring about).

But this notion of not looking out for the nation's interest is just bizarre to me.  I don't even think the whole of the Bill of Right is sacred enough to never change (blasphemy, some on the right would not be happy with such a statement).  Much less, what out side of the Bill of Right.  Much less, even the wording and the intention of these laws and that the case birth right citizenship by "undocumented" citizenship was never quite challenge in the Supreme court.  The other case involved the 14th amendment was involved the parents that are here legally as permanent resident.

Of course, the people living right now can decided on what the constitution meant.  And perhaps in the future, the supreme court will rule one way or another.

But what I don't understand, are out right dismissal of serious concerns as mere racism.

I encourage, Hispanic Americans to participate in the political process and including protesting to voice their own concern and try to influenced the outcome.  Just as the other side of the isle is doing the same.  To me, it is a line of gray and not so much a clear case of black and white like so many liberal pundits portrayed.

Edit: *I would said the million figure is probably overstated.

[weixiaobao]

No. And the correct term is "are"

I know the correct term.  What I think in my head doesn't quite always translate to what I type.  And also, even my thinking is not necessary wired in the correct grammar (but that mostly about the time tenses).  Thank gosh, this is English and not Spanish.  Vietnamese is easier with one time tense, and really one verb tense.  And the words are exactly how it sound.

[Rockefeller GOP]

No.  If you want to argue that there'd be less of a backlash against mass illegal immigration from Canada, fine, that's for another conversation.  But are laws that deport anyone here illegally inherently racist?  I think they're actually inherently not racist.

[The Mikado]

In before eric82oslo delivers the stunningly inane "a person cannot be illegal!"line.

[weixiaobao]

No.  If you want to argue that there'd be less of a backlash against mass illegal immigration from Canada, fine, that's for another conversation.  

Same reason why the Chinese would tolerate Korean and Vietnamese illegal and legal migrants more than Africans.  Mostly over the issues of assimilation.  Though, in the Canada scenario, probably other reasons too.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

They are inherently nationalistic, but not racist.


As always, discussions around this issue tends to get people confused around migrants and refugees.

[pbrower2a]

It is technically far easier to enforce immigration barriers against people who look or act very differently from the dominant people. Those who can assimilate are hard to track down. Even among Hispanics, one finds that some illegal aliens are ultra-American in culture. Maybe a younger sibling is born in America and is a US and is a citizen by birth.

[DavidB.]

No, it is not racist for states to enforce sovereignty over their countries and to protect their borders. What's more, a lily-white Swede who overstays their US visa will also be illegal and could face punishment or maybe deportation for that. Doesn't have anything to do with "race".

[2952-0-0]

No.  If you want to argue that there'd be less of a backlash against mass illegal immigration from Canada, fine, that's for another conversation.  

Same reason why the Chinese would tolerate Korean and Vietnamese illegal and legal migrants more than Africans.  Mostly over the issues of assimilation.  Though, in the Canada scenario, probably other reasons too.

There are legions of westerners in China who are working (say, as English teachers) who don't have education qualifications, and who don't even have work visas. Since the Chinese government tolerates them more than it tolerates Africans with tourist visas working in warehouses, the policy in that context is racist.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yes. but only if white immigration officials enforce them ... because privilege ... and rape culture ... and icky transphobic corporations.

[Famous Mortimer]

No.  If you want to argue that there'd be less of a backlash against mass illegal immigration from Canada, fine, that's for another conversation.  

Same reason why the Chinese would tolerate Korean and Vietnamese illegal and legal migrants more than Africans.  Mostly over the issues of assimilation.  Though, in the Canada scenario, probably other reasons too.

There are legions of westerners in China who are working (say, as English teachers) who don't have education qualifications, and who don't even have work visas. Since the Chinese government tolerates them more than it tolerates Africans with tourist visas working in warehouses, the policy in that context is racist.

Just because people who happen to be of different races are treated differently doesn't mean race is the reason why. Ignoring race completely, there is still one pretty huge difference between African immigrants and American immigrants: American immigrants are coming from a richer country, Africans are coming from a poorer one. I doubt the Chinese mind African Americans coming to teach English. You can't blame a country for not wanting to take on a bunch of poor people. Generally, I think free immigration should only be allowed between countries with similar levels of economic development (as is the case in the EU) or in bizarre situations where there are millions of open jobs and near full employment already.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

There is an odd assumption that if immigration laws are loosened, like, the entire population will get up and go to a richer country. This is definitely a silly notion - after all there's no borders stopping people leaving, say, Mississippi and we haven't seen a mass flight from there. Same with the Pacific Island states that don't have much/any restriction on migration to the U.S. The vast majority of people quite like where they are (certainly the ones that will be a drag on welfare systems, like the elderly) are quite content, for the most part.

It is very hard though to predict how many people would move if hypothetically the border with the USA is loosened. On the times the EU did it, they and the experts dramatically failed to predict the number of economic migrants. When Poland, the Baltics and Cental Europe were admitted the EU dramatically underestimated the movement; when the Romanians and Bulgarians were fully integrated the EU dramatically underestimated.

[Famous Mortimer]

There were mass flights from Mississippi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29

[2952-0-0]

Just because people who happen to be of different races are treated differently doesn't mean race is the reason why. Ignoring race completely, there is still one pretty huge difference between African immigrants and American immigrants: American immigrants are coming from a richer country, Africans are coming from a poorer one. I doubt the Chinese mind African Americans coming to teach English. You can't blame a country for not wanting to take on a bunch of poor people. Generally, I think free immigration should only be allowed between countries with similar levels of economic development (as is the case in the EU) or in bizarre situations where there are millions of open jobs and near full employment already.

I guarantee you that an African American, no matter how well educated, will find it very difficult to find a decent job even in a reputable place (save a multinational company seconding an employee over). OTOH, many companies in China, in an effort to look more authoritative, would hire literally any white person to play the part of a "manager". So if that's not racism then I'm not sure what it is.

Deportation laws, when applied evenly, are not racist. Unless the citizenship laws themselves are racist like Apartheid South Africa, where black people are denied citizenship purely on the basis of their race, and then deported on the basis they are not citizens.

But, the application of these laws is often racist. Doubtful Donald Trump cares that much about the tens of thousands of Irish, Polish, or Portuguese illegal workers across the US, even though they're doing the same menial jobs as Mexicans, Salvadoreans, or Guatemalans.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No.

[Extrabase500]

No, its anti-american/anti-sovereignty to allow millions of illegals (criminals and parasites) into the country and flood our borders. All the illegals should be kicked out/deported.

[Rockefeller GOP]

No, its anti-american/anti-sovereignty to allow millions of illegals (criminals and parasites) into the country and flood our borders. All the illegals should be kicked out/deported.

That is just not fiscally feasible.

[Extrabase500]

No, its anti-american/anti-sovereignty to allow millions of illegals (criminals and parasites) into the country and flood our borders. All the illegals should be kicked out/deported.

That is just not fiscally feasible.

Whats not fiscally feasible is allowing millions of parasites to flood the country and suck it dry like vampires.  Its not fiscally feasible to allow corporations to bring in unskilled workers and put them on welfare for cheap labor. Its not fiscally feasible to allow mexico and other countries to flood America with criminals and rapists. Its not fiscally feasible to pay for millions of parasites/criminals. Amnesty is a TOTAL scam against the American taxpayer!

[Famous Mortimer]

No, its anti-american/anti-sovereignty to allow millions of illegals (criminals and parasites) into the country and flood our borders. All the illegals should be kicked out/deported.

That is just not fiscally feasible.

I don't think it's possible to deport people en mass. We should probably grant an amnesty to everyone already here and then seriously start guarding the border.

At the same time though, I think claims that it would be fiscally impossible to deport immigrants are very disingenuous.

Yes, it would be extremely expensive to deport all illegal immigrants. But you have to weight that against the cost of government services for illegal immigrants and their descendants for the next couple generations. Obviously deportation is cheaper.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, its anti-american/anti-sovereignty to allow millions of illegals (criminals and parasites) into the country and flood our borders. All the illegals should be kicked out/deported.

That is just not fiscally feasible.

I don't think it's possible to deport people en mass. We should probably grant an amnesty to everyone already here and then seriously start guarding the border.

At the same time though, I think claims that it would be fiscally impossible to deport immigrants are very disingenuous.

Yes, it would be extremely expensive to deport all illegal immigrants. But you have to weight that against the cost of government services for illegal immigrants and their descendants for the next couple generations. Obviously deportation is cheaper.

The economic consequences could be dire, though. My personal solution is to give general amnesty to those already here, though a kind that falls short of citizenship as a punishment. Anyone who openly flaunts their legal status before such amnesty should be deported, and afterwards we ought to really work on securing the border and deporting any further illegal immigration. Regardless of what is done, I am tired of the "shadow people" and the "dreamers." These people should live in constant fear of deportation until a feasible solution to their status is found. You shouldn't get a medal for breaking the law the second you arrive in the country.

[SillyAmerican]

No, it is not racist for states to enforce sovereignty over their countries and to protect their borders. What's more, a lily-white Swede who overstays their US visa will also be illegal and could face punishment or maybe deportation for that. Doesn't have anything to do with "race".

Right. Not sure I understand the need to try to make illegal immigration (and a number of other real questions) an issue of race, other than its being an easy button to push to generate a reaction.