Do you think that all illegals should be deported?

[°Leprechaun]

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.

[Famous Mortimer]

I'm for ending birthright citizenship but it can't be done retroactively. We gotta let people who have American kids stay. I would let most of the people currently stay but kick anyone out with a criminal record. The important thing is to not let anymore people in until our economy gets better.

[Cruzcrew]

Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to try to deport 3% of our population, many of which do no harm to the average person? Instead, deport violent criminals and drug dealers while other illegals who pass a background check and pay a fine can stay.

[°Leprechaun]

Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to try to deport 3% of our population, many of which do no harm to the average person? Instead, deport violent criminals and drug dealers while other illegals who pass a background check and pay a fine can stay.

That seems reasonable.

[MATTROSE94]

Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to try to deport 3% of our population, many of which do no harm to the average person? Instead, deport violent criminals and drug dealers while other illegals who pass a background check and pay a fine can stay.

[mencken]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No.  It's not possible, and it's not practical to try.  Illegals who commit crimes - first train back.

[The_Doctor]

Literally impossible to do it without damaging major sectors of the economy, causing political controversy, and making it impossible to enact immigration reform. For all purposes and intents, they need to be assimilated, integrated into the U.S., and given citizenship after fines have been paid, English has been functionally learned, and so on.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

[bobloblaw]

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

[Clark Kent]

Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to try to deport 3% of our population, many of which do no harm to the average person? Instead, deport violent criminals and drug dealers while other illegals who pass a background check and pay a fine can stay.

That seems reasonable.

[mencken]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

[Oakvale]

No, because it's literally impossible, but I disagree with the prevailing notion that it's some kind of unreasonable position. In principle, at least, suggesting that illegal immigrants be deported is not particularly controversial.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[°Leprechaun]

No, because it's literally impossible, but I disagree with the prevailing notion that it's some kind of unreasonable position. In principle, at least, suggesting that illegal immigrants be deported is not particularly controversial.

If it's impossible, why suggest it in the first place?

[mencken]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

How would law enforcement against tax evasion be prohibitively different from law enforcement against international trespassing?

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

How would law enforcement against tax evasion be prohibitively different from law enforcement against international trespassing?

What I am talking about is deporting all illegals, not some illegals.

[mencken]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

How would law enforcement against tax evasion be prohibitively different from law enforcement against international trespassing?

What I am talking about is deporting all illegals, not some illegals.

Do people talk of tax evasion as being "illegal," or "illegal some of the time"? Is society safer when law enforcement declares they will enforce the law, or when they declare that they probably will not be able to enforce the law most of the time?

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

How would law enforcement against tax evasion be prohibitively different from law enforcement against international trespassing?

What I am talking about is deporting all illegals, not some illegals.

Do people talk of tax evasion as being "illegal," or "illegal some of the time"? Is society safer when law enforcement declares they will enforce the law, or when they declare that they probably will not be able to enforce the law most of the time?

What they could say about law enforcement is that they will do the best that they can do relative to the resources given them for doing so.
The politicians talk about issues for years without doing anything or at least not enough. The immigration problem has existed for a long time. In law enforcement, there are plenty of things to impede convicting people for crimes. The US is imprisoning a lot of people, many for nonviolent crimes. Reforming the system doesn't mean letting all murderers go free.
It seems awefully idealist to say that all illegals will be deported. I am using the term illegal, not illegal some of the time. I am talking about the obvious burden of something that is not even necessarily the best solution in the first place. I am talking about something that most people do not think is realistic. It isn't a question of whether these people are here legally or not, of course most of them aren't. It is a question as to what the best solution is.

[ingemann]

No I don't think that all illegals should be deported, the problem are that the American federal and states' government have allowed these people to enter USA for decades and have not really done anything serious to stop this illegal immigration, if the a government choose not to stop crimes, the message it send, is that it's not a real crime. Of course if USA begin to enforce it own laws serious everybody who enter USA afterward illegal are no longer in good faith, and they should be deported.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

Of course, I agree with you, this is why I support open borders and amnesty. No more free riders!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, it would be impossible. I support deporting any openly or publicly known illegals, of course. I want life to be as impossible as it can be fore them. I want "muh Dreamers" to live in the shadows and what have 'ya. But I don't want the ensuing economic collapse if we massively (and inhumanely) just round them up like its 1956.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No I don't think that all illegals should be deported, the problem are that the American federal and states' government have allowed these people to enter USA for decades and have not really done anything serious to stop this illegal immigration, if the a government choose not to stop crimes, the message it send, is that it's not a real crime. Of course if USA begin to enforce it own laws serious everybody who enter USA afterward illegal are no longer in good faith, and they should be deported.

No one has really done anything serious to stop illegal immigration because many sectors American economy, particularly agriculture in California and the Southwest has been dependent on Mexican migrant labor for nearly a century. It is not as if this is a new phenomenon, Mexican laborers have been "illegally" crossing the border to work in the US for decades; what changed was that the American government militarized the border, making the barrier to entry/exit increasingly steep, which in turn fed cartels and organized criminal organizations who could profit off as coyotes, which in turn catalyzed the American desire for more border militarization etc.

American could probably force immigrants to self-deport but the disastrous experiments in Georgia and Alabama demonstrate that punitive immigration laws would have a horrible effect on our agricultural sector. We're also at the point where millions of "illegals" are effectively Americans in all but name, who have lived in this country longer than they have lived in Mexico or El Salvador and, therefore, would actively resist deportation.

Basically, America has taken a very lazy approach to immigration characterized by a number of ineffectual compromises that have benefited no one. To the dismay of xenophobes, immigrants continue to flock to the US. To the dismay of economists and corporations, there's a clear need for increased levels of immigration to meet demand for engineers, computer programmers etc. To the dismay of unions, entire industries filled with militant workers are made impossible to organize because the workers are undocumented.  To the dismay of immigrant families, the American immigration system remains an arcane and intrusive mess. For instance, single adult children of lawful immigrants have to wait 9-14 years to legally re-unify with their family, married adult children of lawful immigrants are out of luck etc.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No, it would be impossible. I support deporting any openly or publicly known illegals, of course. I want life to be as impossible as it can be fore them. I want "muh Dreamers" to live in the shadows and what have 'ya. But I don't want the ensuing economic collapse if we massively (and inhumanely) just round them up like its 1956.

Sanchez, are you drifting back into White Nationalism? I'm concerned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Pat Buchanan

Clearly, them hot-blooded Latin types have no business living in this country, bringing with them their penchant for deviance, rooster fights and bandito shoot-outs!

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

No, it would be impossible. I support deporting any openly or publicly known illegals, of course. I want life to be as impossible as it can be fore them. I want "muh Dreamers" to live in the shadows and what have 'ya. But I don't want the ensuing economic collapse if we massively (and inhumanely) just round them up like its 1956.

Sanchez, are you drifting back into White Nationalism? I'm concerned.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-Pat Buchanan

Clearly, them hot-blooded Latin types have no business living in this country, bringing with them their penchant for deviance, rooster fights and bandito shoot-outs!

Have no fear, Comrade DFB! I am not drifting into white nationalism. While I am a major Buchanan fanboy, I find that quote you provided to be dangerously collectivist. If you are trying to goad me into defending pseudo science like The Bell Curve, it isn't going to happen. .