Do you think that all illegals should be deported?

[courts]

Although it will probably be lampooned as Trump-esque, I think another solution would be to negotiate some sort of deal with Mexico where Mexican nationals can live here, not be citizens, and the Mexican government has to pay us back for their healthcare, education, and any welfare they take. Healthcare is the main issue. As I've said many times before, open borders make universal healthcare impossible. Mexican immigration will stretch even just Obamacare to its limits, as most Mexican immigrants, if made legal, qualify for Medicaid.

sort of agree with this tbh. i think you would have to have both countries agree to land swaps and/or have that 'zone' extend into part of the present u.s. for it to work though

[Leinad]

No, it's idiotic to split up families via government force. I find it mind-boggling how the "fiscally conservative" "pro-family" party has the faction that wants to spend money to deport people, regardless of family concerns (oh, and lots of them also like spending money for war, and many also like the death penalty).

I get the whole "free-rider" argument, I suppose, that we need to cut down on immigration because it costs money. But the solution isn't to deport people, but to stop giving people excessive benefits! Duh-doy!

We need to fix the legal immigration system. It's too hard to get in legally, that's why so many people are entering illegally. Yes, secure the borders, so we know who's in or not. No, don't cut down on legal immigration, America is a country based on immigrants (I say as someone who's family has been here as many generations back as I can think, but knows many descendants of immigrants through playing soccer), it would be downright un-American to keep people from joining this great melting pot of ours. Reform the welfare system so the people who come into this country do so to live in the Land of Opportunity, the Grand Experiment in Liberty we were supposed to be, not the Land of Dependence (maybe I overdid the capitalizations, but you get my point). Deport illegals who commit real crimes (i.e. those with victims) and let people with families stay. I'm unsure about a "path to citizenship," but I'd rather not give better treatment to those that entered illegally than those who entered legally.

I don't care about whether or not it hurts the Republican Party's chances. I'd rather they go plop and--if we're forced to keep a two-party system--be replaced by a true limited government party, instead of just a conservative statist one.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Perhaps it would be easier logistically to enforce the border between Mexico and Central America than the southern U.S. Border

[DavidB.]

No, it's idiotic to split up families via government force. I find it mind-boggling how the "fiscally conservative" "pro-family" party has the faction that wants to spend money to deport people, regardless of family concerns (oh, and lots of them also like spending money for war, and many also like the death penalty).

I get the whole "free-rider" argument, I suppose, that we need to cut down on immigration because it costs money. But the solution isn't to deport people, but to stop giving people excessive benefits! Duh-doy!

We need to fix the legal immigration system. It's too hard to get in legally, that's why so many people are entering illegally. Yes, secure the borders, so we know who's in or not. No, don't cut down on legal immigration, America is a country based on immigrants (I say as someone who's family has been here as many generations back as I can think, but knows many descendants of immigrants through playing soccer), it would be downright un-American to keep people from joining this great melting pot of ours. Reform the welfare system so the people who come into this country do so to live in the Land of Opportunity, the Grand Experiment in Liberty we were supposed to be, not the Land of Dependence (maybe I overdid the capitalizations, but you get my point). Deport illegals who commit real crimes (i.e. those with victims) and let people with families stay. I'm unsure about a "path to citizenship," but I'd rather not give better treatment to those that entered illegally than those who entered legally.

Very good post, I largely agree with this (except for the GOP-bashing).

[mencken]

No, it's idiotic to split up families via government force. I find it mind-boggling how the "fiscally conservative" "pro-family" party has the faction that wants to spend money to deport people, regardless of family concerns (oh, and lots of them also like spending money for war, and many also like the death penalty).

People in prison have families too, should those committing violent crimes not be sent to prison since that breaks up families and costs money to enforce?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pushing the Overton Window further in your direction than you desire makes it more likely that you get the outcome you desire. Even in this quote you backtrack in your demands, asking only for an end to "excessive" (as defined by whom?) benefits. Given the legal obstruction to Prop 187, that has a fat chance in hell of happening.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

10% of the current population is not enough? Do you want the United States to be a larger Dubai?

This argument conflates quality with quantity. I doubt that draconian provisions for the entry of skilled workers is the culprit for why 11 million largely unskilled laborers are here illegally. The latter generally have less to lose by entering the country illegally. Unless you want to reform the immigration system so only the least competent prospective immigrants can arrive, then reforming the legal immigration system will not end illegal immigration.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in an affluent area, so my primary exposure to immigrants is that they generally tend to be an industrious cohort. It would be idiotic for me to extrapolate those experiences toward a group that as a whole is predisposed toward a lack of social and economic mobility. I merely desire more of those immigrants that I know from personal experience and less that constitute the majority of the demographic (i.e. quality over quantity).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any student of chemistry knows that solute is not going to dissolve if you pass the saturation point. The scourge of multiculturalism raging this country ought to indicate that we are well past such a point. Why not eliminate policies that are designed to promote coagulation of the melting pot first, and only admit immigrants who have demonstrated a propensity toward joining the melting pot?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this opens the free rider problem. Failure to punish unauthorized behavior on humanitarian grounds is only going to guarantee more of it. Any wise illegal immigrant would have a child immediately in order to ensure immunity from deportation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That does not seem to affect any of your other perspectives on this issue.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How can you expect a limited government party to remain politically viable when large pools of people from autocratic political cultures are allowed to join the electorate?

[Leinad]

No, it's idiotic to split up families via government force. I find it mind-boggling how the "fiscally conservative" "pro-family" party has the faction that wants to spend money to deport people, regardless of family concerns (oh, and lots of them also like spending money for war, and many also like the death penalty).

People in prison have families too, should those committing violent crimes not be sent to prison since that breaks up families and costs money to enforce?

There's a BIG difference between killing/raping/assaulting a person and crossing over a border without that country's consent. Both are wrong, to a degree, but one is on a MUCH smaller scale, and if they don't do anything else wrong, does deportation truly warrant the costs?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pushing the Overton Window further in your direction than you desire makes it more likely that you get the outcome you desire. Even in this quote you backtrack in your demands, asking only for an end to "excessive" (as defined by whom?) benefits. Given the legal obstruction to Prop 187, that has a fat chance in hell of happening.
[/quote]

"Excessive" is meant to be somewhat vague to keep the focus from moving away from immigration and to a detailed welfare plan. I don't really have a detailed welfare plan, haven't put one together or anything, but my philosophy on the matter is that it should be only a last resort plan, to help only people who absolutely need it, if it's even that much. It's a discussion about immigration, so I was trying to avoid going into too much detail in order to not derail the thread. I ramble too much anyway.

My point is that it's okay to complain about illegal immigrants costing taxpayer dollars from welfare benefits, but not unless you recognize that welfare reform is just as good a solution to the problem, if not a better one, than mass deportation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

10% of the current population is not enough? Do you want the United States to be a larger Dubai?
[/quote]

I don't have any problem with immigrants, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think we lose anything if we have more people born in a different place here--there are good and bad people of every culture, it's silly to act like we're sacrificing True American Values^TM if we let in more immigrants.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not a big fan of valuing people based on their perceived job skill. If they want to come in, and they have no criminal record, and they don't expect us to pay for them, why can't they? Minimum wage laws would still apply, so I don't see how they'd steal jobs from other Americans (by the way, if they're legal citizens, they're just as American as I am). They'd just add to the consumer pool, increasing the need for jobs.

Of course immigration reform wouldn't end illegal immigration, but it would decrease it. Do that, reform the welfare system, and secure the borders, and the immigration situation will be MUCH better.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any student of chemistry knows that solute is not going to dissolve if you pass the saturation point. The scourge of multiculturalism raging this country ought to indicate that we are well past such a point. Why not eliminate policies that are designed to promote coagulation of the melting pot first, and only admit immigrants who have demonstrated a propensity toward joining the melting pot?
[/quote]

What do you define as American culture? I'd define it as the founding principles of liberty and human rights, that a person should have control over their lives and government is illegitimate without the consent of the governed. If adhering to that culture is what makes someone American, considering the rise of statism, I think LOTS of natural-born citizens would be deported ASAP.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this opens the free rider problem. Failure to punish unauthorized behavior on humanitarian grounds is only going to guarantee more of it. Any wise illegal immigrant would have a child immediately in order to ensure immunity from deportation.
[/quote]

No, I'd totally punish real crimes. I just wouldn't punish people for the fake crap people have deemed as "crimes," and that includes illegal immigrants. I'd make sure real criminals get deported and don't come back.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How can you expect a limited government party to remain politically viable when large pools of people from autocratic political cultures are allowed to join the electorate?
[/quote]

Well, if we took away the massive welfare system drawing the statist-leaning people here, America would once again become the land of opportunity, not dependence. You know the trope: an immigrant from the Old Country comes to the New World, without that much, but works hard and achieves the American Dream. Think Ellis Island. It's cliched, but it used to be true, until statism got in the way of that. Not to say all immigrants today are freeloaders--many aren't, but the mindset has certainly been changed with the increase of government.

And that's the key: America's problems are NOT caused by immigrants, minorities, gays, Christians, Jews, the non-religious, or whatever--the core cause of the nation's problems is statism. The total dependence on government to regulate morality, police the globe, and give money to people (that they took from others). That is the common thread to 90% of this country's problems.

[mencken]

No, it's idiotic to split up families via government force. I find it mind-boggling how the "fiscally conservative" "pro-family" party has the faction that wants to spend money to deport people, regardless of family concerns (oh, and lots of them also like spending money for war, and many also like the death penalty).

People in prison have families too, should those committing violent crimes not be sent to prison since that breaks up families and costs money to enforce?

There's a BIG difference between killing/raping/assaulting a person and crossing over a border without that country's consent. Both are wrong, to a degree, but one is on a MUCH smaller scale, and if they don't do anything else wrong, does deportation truly warrant the costs?

So you really aren't concerned with costs or separating families (since you think these are appropriate measures for murder, rape, assault, etc.), you have a substantive objection to enforcing immigration law with the same severity as every other law on the books. Are there any other activities that you believe should be illegal but unenforced, or is international trespassing some sort of sacred cow?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

10% of the current population is not enough? Do you want the United States to be a larger Dubai?
[/quote]

I don't have any problem with immigrants, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't think we lose anything if we have more people born in a different place here--there are good and bad people of every culture, it's silly to act like we're sacrificing True American Values^TM if we let in more immigrants.[/quote]

Again, would you like America to be a larger Dubai? 10% of the current population is already a substantial fraction, so I am a bit perplexed when you say we do not let in enough immigrants, unless your preference is for a nation primarily composed of the foreign-born. Surely you would recognize that your desire for an American melting pot is incongruous with an immigrant population far higher than 10% of the population?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not a big fan of valuing people based on their perceived job skill. If they want to come in, and they have no criminal record, and they don't expect us to pay for them, why can't they? Minimum wage laws would still apply, so I don't see how they'd steal jobs from other Americans (by the way, if they're legal citizens, they're just as American as I am). They'd just add to the consumer pool, increasing the need for jobs.

Of course immigration reform wouldn't end illegal immigration, but it would decrease it. Do that, reform the welfare system, and secure the borders, and the immigration situation will be MUCH better. [/quote]

Part of the desirability of illegal immigrants is that, being by definition in violation of immigration law, they are less likely to object to employers' violations of labor law. Thus, I suspect that importing unskilled labor from the Third-World would be less desirable if employers had to pay the full cost.

If you truly want to improve the economy by importing consumers, it would make far more sense to import people who have more (or greater potential to have more) disposable income. Bringing in people to work for at or below the minimum wage will not have this effect, as the part of their income that is not spent on sustenance is almost certainly going to be sent back to their home country.

Again, I think that any perceived shortage of immigrant labor is an illusion due to externalized costs. Make employers bear the externalities that increased immigration entails, and they will give American workers or even robots a second look.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Any student of chemistry knows that solute is not going to dissolve if you pass the saturation point. The scourge of multiculturalism raging this country ought to indicate that we are well past such a point. Why not eliminate policies that are designed to promote coagulation of the melting pot first, and only admit immigrants who have demonstrated a propensity toward joining the melting pot?
[/quote]

What do you define as American culture? I'd define it as the founding principles of liberty and human rights, that a person should have control over their lives and government is illegitimate without the consent of the governed. If adhering to that culture is what makes someone American, considering the rise of statism, I think LOTS of natural-born citizens would be deported ASAP.[/quote]

While I agree with the sentiment, surely you recognize a difference of degree? Surely the median supporter of the US Democratic Party, as repugnant as it is, is more representative of America's founding principles than the median Sandanista or PRI supporter?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, this opens the free rider problem. Failure to punish unauthorized behavior on humanitarian grounds is only going to guarantee more of it. Any wise illegal immigrant would have a child immediately in order to ensure immunity from deportation.
[/quote]

No, I'd totally punish real crimes. I just wouldn't punish people for the fake crap people have deemed as "crimes," and that includes illegal immigrants. I'd make sure real criminals get deported and don't come back.[/quote]

You did not address the issue. If I am an illegal immigrant, and I know that having a child guarantees I will not be deported unless I commit a heinous crime, why would I not have an anchor baby?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How can you expect a limited government party to remain politically viable when large pools of people from autocratic political cultures are allowed to join the electorate?
[/quote]

Well, if we took away the massive welfare system drawing the statist-leaning people here, America would once again become the land of opportunity, not dependence. You know the trope: an immigrant from the Old Country comes to the New World, without that much, but works hard and achieves the American Dream. Think Ellis Island. It's cliched, but it used to be true, until statism got in the way of that. Not to say all immigrants today are freeloaders--many aren't, but the mindset has certainly been changed with the increase of government.

And that's the key: America's problems are NOT caused by immigrants, minorities, gays, Christians, Jews, the non-religious, or whatever--the core cause of the nation's problems is statism. The total dependence on government to regulate morality, police the globe, and give money to people (that they took from others). That is the common thread to 90% of this country's problems.
[/quote]

The problem is a positive feedback loop: A massive welfare system brings in undesirable immigrants, undesirable immigrants (and their anchored offspring) install politicians to expand the massive welfare system. Given this predicament, is there something objectionable to addressing both parts of the problem, rather than focusing one's enmity only on one part?

[MK]

Liberals think it is impractical to deport 12 millions illegals but perfectly practical to confiscate 300 million guns

This.

[IronFist]

Seven day poll.

No, I don't think it is practical to deport 10-11 million people, however "right" it may be as
far as the fact that being a so called "illegal" means there is no inherent "right" to live here.
Will this break up families?
How much will it cost? If Trump is the nominee can he win the latino/hispanic vote with this plan?
Can he possibly win the election?
Do Republicans seriously think that this will not be used by the Democrat (Ms Clinton) to win the election against him?
You can change your vote if you change your mind.
Suppose Trump does become POTUS. Will he be able to accomplish this? Why hasn't he changed his mind? Trump is leading in most states, but given that the vote is split between so many candidates, does his tie with Carson near 25% for both more or less, really indicate that there is any possibility that he will win. It will be interesting how close we get to the CA primary without a clear single leader. If there is no clear winner before CA, it will be interesting tio see who wins CA. No I also don't think we will be living in the SNL Utopia by 2018.

In southern states percentage of Hispanics is up to 50%. New Mexico state has 46% of Hispanics, Texas has 37% of legal Hispanics. Number of illegal is permanently growing. It is already easier and cheaper to leave them here than to deport. Technically too.

[Famous Mortimer]

Seven day poll.

No, I don't think it is practical to deport 10-11 million people, however "right" it may be as
far as the fact that being a so called "illegal" means there is no inherent "right" to live here.
Will this break up families?
How much will it cost? If Trump is the nominee can he win the latino/hispanic vote with this plan?
Can he possibly win the election?
Do Republicans seriously think that this will not be used by the Democrat (Ms Clinton) to win the election against him?
You can change your vote if you change your mind.
Suppose Trump does become POTUS. Will he be able to accomplish this? Why hasn't he changed his mind? Trump is leading in most states, but given that the vote is split between so many candidates, does his tie with Carson near 25% for both more or less, really indicate that there is any possibility that he will win. It will be interesting how close we get to the CA primary without a clear single leader. If there is no clear winner before CA, it will be interesting tio see who wins CA. No I also don't think we will be living in the SNL Utopia by 2018.

In southern states percentage of Hispanics is up to 50%. New Mexico state has 46% of Hispanics, Texas has 37% of legal Hispanics. Number of illegal is permanently growing. It is already easier and cheaper to leave them here than to deport. Technically too.

Not really. It's disingenuous to compare to cost of deportation to the cost of "doing nothing" as if doing nothing meant $0, doing nothing means paying for welfare and healthcare for all illegal immigrants and their children and their children forever.