Do you think that all illegals should be deported?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 02:04:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Do you think that all illegals should be deported?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Poll
Question: skip
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 52

Author Topic: Do you think that all illegals should be deported?  (Read 4256 times)
wolfsblood07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: November 11, 2015, 11:34:59 PM »

Yes.  They should all be deported, starting with the ones in jail.  But they all have to go.
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2015, 06:34:05 AM »

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.

Agreed.

Actually, I'd be in favor of seeing our legal immigration policy vis-a-vis those from Mexico (and anywhere else, for that matter) changed a bit, to give higher weight to those who are willing to learn english.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2015, 08:51:28 AM »

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.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2015, 09:11:19 AM »

The easy solution would be having to pay X amount of taxes before qualifying for US benefits.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2015, 09:29:41 AM »

A large number of them wouldn't pay taxes at all because of child tax credits, let alone "x amount" if "x amount" is a number that would significantly cover their costs.

Also, it's just not politically realistic to have second class residents. I mean, we have them now but it's not something anyone would support making into law.
Logged
Taco Truck 🚚
Schadenfreude
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 958
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2015, 09:31:30 AM »
« Edited: November 13, 2015, 10:14:19 AM by Schadenfreude »

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.

Just a heads up...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html?_r=0
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2015, 10:19:58 AM »

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.

Is it fun being a bigot?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html?_r=0



And there is an obvious flaw with your (and the NY Slimes') line of reasoning. Illegal immigrants are, by their very nature, far more likely to be working off the books. Really, how can you find better employees for the grey market than those whose very presence is a crime? Somehow I doubt the gardener working for $2 below the minimum wage or the few extra workers the industrial farm "forgot" to put into their system are paying payroll tax. However, even ignoring the above chart, one would have to concede that illegal immigrants have to drive and sometimes get sick, both likely disproportionate to their share of the population, which means they are benefiting from public transportation and emergency room care that they have not paid for. And since one cannot ask the legal status of welfare recipients, it seems a bit generous to assume that none have tried to take advantage of that.
Logged
RI
realisticidealist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,714


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2015, 11:41:50 AM »

No, I'd rather have open borders than mass deportations. The United States is on the verge of reaching sub-replacement level fertility rates. We need all the immigrants we can get.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2015, 01:03:51 AM »

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.

Is it fun being a bigot?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html?_r=0



And there is an obvious flaw with your (and the NY Slimes') line of reasoning. Illegal immigrants are, by their very nature, far more likely to be working off the books. Really, how can you find better employees for the grey market than those whose very presence is a crime? Somehow I doubt the gardener working for $2 below the minimum wage or the few extra workers the industrial farm "forgot" to put into their system are paying payroll tax. However, even ignoring the above chart, one would have to concede that illegal immigrants have to drive and sometimes get sick, both likely disproportionate to their share of the population, which means they are benefiting from public transportation and emergency room care that they have not paid for. And since one cannot ask the legal status of welfare recipients, it seems a bit generous to assume that none have tried to take advantage of that.

Again, this is an argument for "amnesty", not an argument for deporting immigrants that have received our public investments. What, exactly, would be achieved by deporting 17 year olds who were brought here when they were 2 or 3? How is that an appropriate response to putative tax evasion? The goal is to get these people into our system and to fine them appropriately. An obvious solution would be to liberalize our immigration to the fullest extent possible, allowing migrants to come into this country for any reason after a brief screening, an upfront payment of, say, one thousand dollars and a one to three year waiting period to collect benefits from the government.

Look man, if you hate dumb low IQ browns or whatever, just say so. Your argument is very weak. If it was founded on concerns about the wage effects of unskilled immigration, it would be a bit harder to address. This argument, on the other hand, is stupid.
Logged
mencken
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,222
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2015, 01:33:53 AM »
« Edited: November 19, 2015, 01:49:25 AM by mencken »

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.

Is it fun being a bigot?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html?_r=0



And there is an obvious flaw with your (and the NY Slimes') line of reasoning. Illegal immigrants are, by their very nature, far more likely to be working off the books. Really, how can you find better employees for the grey market than those whose very presence is a crime? Somehow I doubt the gardener working for $2 below the minimum wage or the few extra workers the industrial farm "forgot" to put into their system are paying payroll tax. However, even ignoring the above chart, one would have to concede that illegal immigrants have to drive and sometimes get sick, both likely disproportionate to their share of the population, which means they are benefiting from public transportation and emergency room care that they have not paid for. And since one cannot ask the legal status of welfare recipients, it seems a bit generous to assume that none have tried to take advantage of that.

Again, this is an argument for "amnesty", not an argument for deporting immigrants that have received our public investments. What, exactly, would be achieved by deporting 17 year olds who were brought here when they were 2 or 3? How is that an appropriate response to putative tax evasion? The goal is to get these people into our system and to fine them appropriately. An obvious solution would be to liberalize our immigration to the fullest extent possible, allowing migrants to come into this country for any reason after a brief screening, an upfront payment of, say, one thousand dollars and a one to three year waiting period to collect benefits from the government.

Look man, if you hate dumb low IQ browns or whatever, just say so. Your argument is very weak. If it was founded on concerns about the wage effects of unskilled immigration, it would be a bit harder to address. This argument, on the other hand, is stupid.

Amnesty was tried in 1986, with the predictable result of the problem worsening. Who would have thought that rewarding those who broke the law would encourage more violations of said law? Amnesty for 2 million thirty years ago resulted in 11 million free riders; clearly deporting a large portion of that 2 million indiscriminately would have been the cheaper option in retrospect. What is going to result in a greater reduction in this problem long term: Limited enforcement of the law with amnesty to stragglers every few decades, or stringent enforcement of the law with sporadic periods of draconian enforcement?

I am not opposed to a liberalization of the immigration process; although I think $1,000 would be far too low of an estimate of the typical migrant's use of public services during their stay. If our system were one in which anyone was allowed entry after a brief screening and a five-figure bond posted by either the migrant or their sponsor (which could be redeemed after a ~10 year period with an audit of tax records and no public assistance used), I would be satisfied. The problem is that defining a liberal immigration policy is futile while they are massive incentives not to abide by said policy.
Logged
RFayette
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,952
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2015, 12:05:05 PM »

As of this point, I think I'd support a "touchback" amnesty proposal.  Going forward, I'd love to see birthright citizenship removed, zero benefits for illegals, and a much stronger border.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2015, 09:05:47 PM »

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.

Quote
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!
What about that excerpt do you perceive to be racist? I live right by Stuyvesant and every day at around 3:00 I see the same thing...

Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2015, 09:32:18 PM »

Do you think that all illegals should be deported?

No.  I think it's high time for a blanket amnesty.  Less costly; more effective.  Last time was 1986, I think.  Long overdue.


Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 20, 2015, 01:04:29 PM »

Do you think that all illegals should be deported?

No.  I think it's high time for a blanket amnesty.  Less costly; more effective.  Last time was 1986, I think.  Long overdue.




i'm no lawyer, but I'm opposed to this because I think amnesty would prohibit us sending them back if they're convicted of committing additional crimes  - and I do think they should be sent back for committing additional crimes - felonies specifically
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2015, 08:22:46 PM »

pretty hard to deport me if I commit a felony as well.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting automatic citizenship, just a blanket amnesty.  Green cards can be revoked, if necessary, although I suspect with the overwhelming majority of undocumented aliens it would not be necessary. 
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 22, 2015, 02:51:05 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2015, 02:59:55 PM by Famous Mortimer »

Do you think that all illegals should be deported?

No.  I think it's high time for a blanket amnesty.  Less costly; more effective.  Last time was 1986, I think.  Long overdue.




This is bizarre. You think we should keep the laws we have but just grant an amnesty every couple of years for people who break them? Why not just get rid of the laws? Moderate Hero-ism at its most illogical.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 22, 2015, 06:25:48 PM »

Do you think that all illegals should be deported?

No.  I think it's high time for a blanket amnesty.  Less costly; more effective.  Last time was 1986, I think.  Long overdue.




This is bizarre. You think we should keep the laws we have but just grant an amnesty every couple of years for people who break them? Why not just get rid of the laws? Moderate Hero-ism at its most illogical.

Every couple of years?  Probably not.  Last time congress enacted the sort of bill I'm talking about was nearly 30 years ago.  That's what I meant by "long overdue."  Really, the alternative is that we must accept that we will have a permanent underclass.

And, yes, once in a while I'd say that "why not just get rid of the laws?" is a perfectly sane approach.  The majority on this forum have in poll after poll indicated that this is the prevailing attitude on several issues.  Whether they do on this issue is another question, and I am not claiming that they do, but only that I do, given that all the alternatives are all more costly and ineffective.

Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 22, 2015, 07:19:14 PM »

We will have a permanent underclass either way. Giving poor Mexicans a green card or even citizenship is not going to magically make them middle class.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2015, 07:25:35 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2015, 07:27:19 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

We will have a permanent underclass either way. Giving poor Mexicans a green card or even citizenship is not going to magically make them middle class.

Well, you see, Mexicans are actually fairly "socially mobile"; a fact demonstrated by a plethora of sociological studies. This fact should come as no surprise; unlike working class whites, immigrants, whether Indian or Mexican, have large social networks that they can leverage for jobs, savings etc. Immigrants tend to believe in "the American Dream" because they have cultural traditions that are well-disposed to a country that has a meager social safety; working class whites have shed these traditions for a variety of reasons.

This is a pretty "functionalist" account of the family but I think it makes sense in broad-terms. Anyways, it's not mutually exclusive to support "liberalized immigration systems" and an expanded social safety net; which are perfectly commensurate. Immigrants expand our economy (an indisputable fact), which in turn grants policymakers more flexibility/wider opportunity set from which to craft public policy, including a meaningful welfare state and social safety net. Immigrants can enrich "plutocrats", sure, but that's a function of political choice, not a path-dependent inevitability. The notion that it is "inevitable" that immigrants will lead to yawning gulfs of income equality is an intellectual error, conflating correlation with causation.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 22, 2015, 07:31:05 PM »

If Mexicans are so socially mobile, why is Mexico so poor?
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: November 22, 2015, 07:37:24 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2015, 07:39:30 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

If Mexicans are so socially mobile, why is Mexico so poor?

Seriously man, I'm not sure why I engage in these conversations with you. This post in a non-sequitur, I'm referring to the social mobility of Mexican-Americans in the United States, which clearly offers more opportunities for social mobility than Mexico.

That said, even this non-sequitur is off-base:
1. Poverty is a category distinctly unrelated to social mobility. For instance, the United States is far more unequal than the UK but it also features more social mobility.
2. Mexico is not "so poor", a fact that's belied simply by setting foot in the country. It's a county that has social problems, particularly related to income inequality but it's not poor, that's inane. It's a middle-income country with a substantial middle class.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: November 22, 2015, 07:41:40 PM »

6 million people don't leave a middle class country to go live illegally some place else and work in fields/do under the table labor.

If you have a bunch of middle class people and then you add a bunch of poor people, the average income does not go up. It goes down. It's simple math.

Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: November 22, 2015, 07:48:03 PM »
« Edited: November 22, 2015, 07:49:47 PM by TheDeadFlagBlues »

6 million people don't leave a middle class country to go live illegally some place else and work in fields/do under the table labor.

If you have a bunch of middle class people and then you add a bunch of poor people, the average income does not go up. It goes down. It's simple math.

Um, I said that Mexico is a middle-income country with a large middle class, I did not claim that it's middle class or developed. I'm well-aware of the social problems that catalyzed immigrant from Mexico to the United States, those problems are not as existent as they once were, a fact that has been noted by nearly every mainstream media publication. Do you suffer from amnesia or something?

I don't think you understand economics. For one, I was referring to the total share of economic output, from which tax revenues are derived; I was not referring to a measure of income that no one uses when describing the economic health of nation. Immigration certainly increases economic output, an entirely uncontroversial claim. My point is that, even if immigrants pushed down wages for native workers, that this could be remedied by public policy. If immigration increases economic output but increases inequality, the solution is to advocate for pre-distributive and re-distributive policies, not to oppose immigration which is a facile response similar to advocating for rent control or tariffs.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: November 22, 2015, 07:52:20 PM »

You think average income is a bad way to measure the economic health of society but total economic output (not taking into account population or distribution) is a good way?
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 22, 2015, 08:00:39 PM »

You think average income is a bad way to measure the economic health of society but total economic output (not taking into account population or distribution) IS?

How about you actually engage my arguments about Mexico or my claims about social mobility or my claims about immigration's effect on the economic health and capacity rather than continually shifting the argument?

Yes, I believe that looking at measures of total economic output are a better way of measuring the effects of immigration on an economy than making a facile claim about "poor" people driving down the average income by definition. Why? That's not how economies work. There's this thing called a "General Equilibrium Effect". Supposing that immigrants are substitutes for native workers (not true), even still, they would not drive down average wages/income to the extent that you might think because they'd also increase demand in various product markets, cancelling out some of the effects of increasing the labor supply.

Anyways, this is really besides the point. It's a fact that immigrants are far more socially mobile than native born Americans. That's what this argument is about. Engage with it.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/254074643_Socially_Mobile_Mexican_Americans_and_the_Minority_Culture_of_Mobility

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.economist.com/node/7063472
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.071 seconds with 14 queries.