Federal Appeals Court upholds injunction against Obama amnesty

This is good. Now, we deport them.

Noting the journalistic integrity of the NYT headline compared to the one in the OP.

KarateCowboy said:

This is good. Now, we deport them.

Click to expand...

That seems insanely inefficient and morally dubious.

I just keep hoping all this shenanigans eventually leads to real immigration reform.

Vylo said:

That seems insanely inefficient and morally dubious.

I just keep hoping all this shenanigans eventually leads to real immigration reform.

Click to expand...

Any ethical, moderate immigration enforcement would, by necessity, heavily implement deportation.

Either way: I can kick you out and make you deal with the consequences of your own actions, or.... sit down and sift through years of trans-national lies and forgeries you've concocted to see if your dishonesty, usurping, and deceit are small enough that I should reward you with something millions of people have played by the rules in hopes of getting. It's a no brainer: deportation & attrition through enforcement are the most efficient solutions.

Amnesty is just plain wrong. Pro-amnesty is anti-justice, intrinsically.

Real immigration reform would mean eliminating chain migration and bringing numbers down to a sustainable level of around 250,000 per year

Vylo said:

That seems insanely inefficient and morally dubious.

I just keep hoping all this shenanigans eventually leads to real immigration reform.

Click to expand...

Can you please provide some explication for the idea deportation is morally dubious?

I always find a bit of irony on the attitudes toward immigration...

There are some on the left who want to loosen immigration restrictions, and also want to expand social programs as well. The combination of the two ideas is dicey.

Even many, very liberal, Euro nations realized that... which is why many of them adopted very strict immigration restrictions in conjunction with their comprehensive social programs. The ones who didn't are the ones that are having some issues with their universal healthcare systems and other social programs in terms of costs.

Many of the countries in Europe (who are often cited by the left as examples of who we should aspire to be like in many social aspects) have far stricter immigration laws than we do.


If we were just talking about immigration by itself, I'm all for loosening up restrictions...people should be to come into this country and contribute if they so choose...however, when you also have people talking about implementing expensive social programs, that's where I become hesitant. If you start offering things like free healthcare and free college to any citizen, people are going to start flooding in for free healthcare and free education (as Sweden found out the hard way by not implementing stricter immigration policies prior to implementing certain social programs).

Vylo said:

That seems insanely inefficient and morally dubious.

I just keep hoping all this shenanigans eventually leads to real immigration reform.

Click to expand...

Still waiting for the explanation of this comment.
If you wanted greater efficiency, land minds on the Southern Border would be a start. That would raise a few moral/ethical even legal questions. But deportation? Deportation is one of the lightest punishments ever. If I go onto my neighbor's property without permission, I'm liable. I have to pay money as damages when/if I am sued and the evidence presented blah blah blah. Deportation is not even, "Get off my lawn!" because we pay the freight to send illegal immigrants back.

I can get behind making immigration easier. I think it ought to be about as complex and onerous as applying to the State Bar. Right now, immigration law is so riddled with regulations, exceptions, exemptions, pit falls, etc. that you really do need a specialized attorney to deal with it. But you deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it were. I have no sympathy for people who intentionally break the law and then complain when they are caught. There is nothing disproportionate, cruel or unusual with the current deportation procedures.

JohnLocke said:

Still waiting for the explanation of this comment.
If you wanted greater efficiency, land minds on the Southern Border would be a start. That would raise a few moral/ethical even legal questions. But deportation? Deportation is one of the lightest punishments ever. If I go onto my neighbor's property without permission, I'm liable. I have to pay money as damages when/if I am sued and the evidence presented blah blah blah. Deportation is not even, "Get off my lawn!" because we pay the freight to send illegal immigrants back.

I can get behind making immigration easier. I think it ought to be about as complex and onerous as applying to the State Bar. Right now, immigration law is so riddled with regulations, exceptions, exemptions, pit falls, etc. that you really do need a specialized attorney to deal with it. But you deal with the world as it is, not as you wish it were. I have no sympathy for people who intentionally break the law and then complain when they are caught. There is nothing disproportionate, cruel or unusual with the current deportation procedures.

Click to expand...

It is inefficient to deport millions of people, who are currently contributing to our economy. We are pretty well subsidized by illegal labor.

It is morally dubious as you are talking about sending millions of otherwise innocent people out of the country and breaking up families, etc. to do it.

Of course legally, yes it would be right to deport them, but considering the laws have failed to do what they were designed for, doing what is legal, might not be doing what is right and/or expedient for the nation and its people.

The best course would be to grant amnesty for those who have otherwise been law-abiding citizens, especially, if not only, those who have paid taxes (which an estimated 3 million of them have done). Then we have to actually make our border secure and revamp our immigration laws to make them effective so we don't end up in this situation again, because really, there isn't a good outcome no matter which we choose.

We can try and deport all the illegals, spending and losing hundreds of billions of dollars, or we can give amnesty which shows contempt for our laws. There isn't a good choice, we are faced with choosing the better of 2 evils because we failed to enforce our immigration laws to the point where doing so now would be chaotic and insanely costly, both fiscally, and on a human level.

Vylo said:

It is inefficient to deport millions of people, who are currently contributing to our economy. We are pretty well subsidized by illegal labor.

Click to expand...

As I said before: you can take millions of people who overall take more than they contribute and, one by one, go through a trans-national paper trail of credit card lies, bank account lies, drivers license lies, visa lies, social security lies, labor law lies, housing identification lies, across governments. We can literally dig through the papers of police departments, immigration offices, credit bureaus, banks etc of every nation on the entire planet to sift through their lies. Or.... tell them "no job for you" , and to leave and take their problems with them.

It is morally dubious as you are talking about sending millions of otherwise innocent people out of the country and breaking up families, etc. to do it.

Click to expand...

It is morally upright because "otherwise innocent" just means "guilty". You are enforcing justice. You know, it's like you're just reading talking points from the anti-justice playbook. Did it ever occur to you that any children he has can go back with him? Did it ever occur to you that anyone who came here from another country left behind family? Does it occur to you that they were obviously fine with that? If someone comes here from another country then he has voluntarily separated himself from his family; if he cared about being separated from his family he never would have left his native land to begin with. "You'll separate families" is an argument that is dishonest on every level and emotionally exploitive.

Of course legally, yes it would be right to deport them, but considering the laws have failed to do what they were designed for, doing what is legal, might not be doing what is right and/or expedient for the nation and its people.

Click to expand...

Failing to enforce the laws is not the laws themselves failing.

The best course would be to grant amnesty for those who have otherwise been law-abiding citizens, especially, if not only, those who have paid taxes (which an estimated 3 million of them have done). Then we have to actually make our border secure and revamp our immigration laws to make them effective so we don't end up in this situation again, because really, there isn't a good outcome no matter which we choose.

We can try and deport all the illegals, spending and losing hundreds of billions of dollars, or we can give amnesty which shows contempt for our laws. There isn't a good choice, we are faced with choosing the better of 2 evils because we failed to enforce our immigration laws to the point where doing so now would be chaotic and insanely costly, both fiscally, and on a human level.

Click to expand...

Amnesty is anti-justice and costly. We do not want these types of people here. The best course is a combination of deportation and attrition through enforcement. Mandatory E-verify in all states is the starting point. It's immoral to suggest amnesty until you've first tried attrition through enforcement.

KarateCowboy said:

As I said before: you can take millions of people who overall take more than they contribute and, one by one, go through a trans-national paper trail of credit card lies, bank account lies, drivers license lies, visa lies, social security lies, labor law lies, housing identification lies, across governments or.... tell them to leave and take their problems with them.



It is morally upright because "otherwise innocent" just means "guilty". You are enforcing justice. You know, it's like you're just reading talking points from the anti-justice playbook. Did it ever occur to you that any children he has can go back with him? Did it ever occur to you that anyone who came here from another country left behind family? Does it occur to you that they were obviously fine with that? If someone comes here from another country then he has voluntarily separated himself from his family; if he cared about being separated from his family he never would have left his native land to begin with. "You'll separate families" is an argument that is dishonest on every level and emotionally exploitive.



Failing to enforce the laws is not the laws themselves failing.


Amnesty is anti-justice and costly. We do not want these types of people here. The best course is a combination of deportation and attrition through enforcement. Mandatory E-verify in all states is the starting point. It's immoral to suggest amnesty until you've first tried attrition through enforcement.

Click to expand...

What about all those businesses who benefit from their cheap labor? Do you honestly think Americans would work for what the illegals work for?

Edit: heck What happens if they do grant amnesty? Does that mean businesses have to pay them actual minimum wage?
Edit 2: On that note, how do these illegal guys manage to survive on pennies, and send money back home and americans can't even pay the bills and survive on the "higher pay" of minimum wage. maybe we should learn something from these guys.

ChristsSoldier115 said:

What about all those businesses who benefit from their cheap labor? Do you honestly think Americans would work for what the illegals work for?

Edit: heck What happens if they do grant amnesty? Does that mean businesses have to pay them actual minimum wage?

Click to expand...

You've hit on a good issue: our unsustainable immigration numbers, which are terrible for the environment and our natural resources, are ultimately here for cheap labor. IBM recently lost a discrimination case where they were laying off native tech workers and replacing them with cheaper H1B labor. At the same time, they were lobbying Congress for more visas, saying they couldn't find Americans to do those jobs.

A tight labor market is a worker's best friend because it drives wages up. Our current immigration policy is for the uber rich, and hurts the middle and lower classes. High immigration is the enemy of the middle class.

Edit 2: On that note, how do these illegal guys manage to survive on pennies, and send money back home and americans can't even pay the bills and survive on the "higher pay" of minimum wage. maybe we should learn something from these guys.

Click to expand...

It's because they're living off subsidized housing, food stamps, and the tax payer. That's how.

Another huge problem with amnesty is going to be the lawsuits. In addition to the ridiculous and extreme amount of money we spend digging through these cheaters' history, there will be lawsuits. Some people will get rejected and some accepted through the vetting process. I can guarantee the vetting process will not do justice to the American citizen. Nevertheless, laws are different in different countries. This means objective comparison of past legal records will be impossible. This will leave wide berth for appeals by the rejected. They may even be able to file lawsuits. All these will cost the taxpayers billions. But, per amnesty proponents, this is easier than attrition through enforcement.

KarateCowboy said:

It's because they're living off subsidized housing, food stamps, and the tax payer. That's how.

Click to expand...

I take it through forged paperwork? I guess I'll look it up, because how many of actually doing that would be the question. Is it a common, or just an exception?

KarateCowboy said:

You've hit on a good issue: our unsustainable immigration numbers, which are terrible for the environment and our natural resources, are ultimately here for cheap labor. IBM recently lost a discrimination case where they were laying off native tech workers and replacing them with cheaper H1B labor. At the same time, they were lobbying Congress for more visas, saying they couldn't find Americans to do those jobs.

A tight labor market is a worker's best friend because it drives wages up. Our current immigration policy is for the uber rich, and hurts the middle and lower classes. High immigration is the enemy of the middle class.


.

Click to expand...

let me ask this how will the businesses in america react to have to pay minimum wage or more to workers again? Will this inflate prices of common goods? that is what I was asking.

As I said before: you can take millions of people who overall take more than they contribute

Click to expand...

They don't take more than they contribute. They subsidize a large portion of our labor force. You could very easily cut out a huge portion of the "good" from the bad, by simply giving amnesty to the 3 million who voluntarily paid income taxes.

Trying to tell them "no job for you" hasn't worked very well so far.

You've hit on a good issue: our unsustainable immigration numbers,

Click to expand...

wat.

Our immigration numbers are more than supportable. You should look at both our historical immigration numbers and those of other nations. Canada has a foreign born population rate 50% higher than ours and they are fine.

Another huge problem with amnesty is going to be the lawsuits. In addition to the ridiculous and extreme amount of money we spend digging through these cheaters' history, there will be lawsuits. Some people will get rejected and some accepted through the vetting process. I can guarantee the vetting process will not do justice to the American citizen. Nevertheless, laws are different in different countries. This means objective comparison of past legal records will be impossible. This will leave wide berth for appeals by the rejected. They may even be able to file lawsuits. All these will cost the taxpayers billions. But, per amnesty proponents, this is easier than attrition through enforcement.

Click to expand...

You honestly think that will cost more money than trying to deport 12 million people and the economic chasm that will create in the workforce?

Vylo said:

They don't take more than they contribute. They subsidize a large portion of our labor force. You could very easily cut out a huge portion of the "good" from the bad, by simply giving amnesty to the 3 million who voluntarily paid income taxes.

Click to expand...

No. No. The numbers have been crunched over and over. They are, by far, a net expense to the taxpayer.

Trying to tell them "no job for you" hasn't worked very well so far.

Click to expand...

That's because we're not doing it. Ever heard the term 'sanctuary city'? Let me ask you: are you for trying mandatory E-Verify in all states before we think about amnesty?

wat.

Our immigration numbers are more than supportable. You should look at both our historical immigration numbers and those of other nations. Canada has a foreign born population rate 50% higher than ours and they are fine.

Click to expand...

Umm, you should look at our historical numbers. Our current legal immigration numbers are about five times higher than the average during the Ellis Island Great Wave of Immigration. Our numbers are environmentally damaging.

You honestly think that will cost more money than trying to deport 12 million people and the economic chasm that will create in the workforce?

Click to expand...

You honestly think doing background checks, sifting through the credit card lies, drivers license lies, social security lies, bank account lies, housing application lies, criminal background lies, and other lies of 12 million people, across literally every nation on the planet is going to be cheaper than just kicking them out?

There are millions of unemployed Americans looking for work. You call it a chasm. They call it opportunity.

KarateCowboy said:

No. No. The numbers have been crunched over and over. They are, by far, a net expense to the taxpayer.

Click to expand...

How can you crunch those numbers? When did the IRS release their income tax numbers? The only crunching I have seen is fantasy work.

That's because we're not doing it. Ever heard the term 'sanctuary city'? Let me ask you: are you for trying mandatory E-Verify in all states before we think about amnesty?

Click to expand...

I've seen firsthand how well e verify works......there are some very easy loopholes around it.

Umm, you should look at our historical numbers. Our current legal immigration numbers are about five times higher than the average during the Ellis Island Great Wave of Immigration. Our numbers are environmentally damaging.

Click to expand...

By our historical numbers we had a GREATER foreign born population then. Raw numbers aren't as relevant as % foreign born. America needs more people if it is going to sustain growth against countries like China, and especially India. If the current Americans aren't going to have enough kids (they aren't), we need immigrants to continue growth. America has MASSIVE resources compared to a nation that literally sustains over 4 times our population. Our country is one of the lowest in terms of population density in the world. Even desert wastelands like Afghanistan are more populated than we are.

You honestly think doing background checks, sifting through the credit card lies, drivers license lies, social security lies, bank account lies, housing application lies, criminal background lies, and other lies of 12 million people, across literally every nation on the planet is going to be cheaper than just kicking them out?
.

Click to expand...

Yes it will be, you don't have to check credit cards, driver's licenses, etc. You only do criminal background checks. That's a lot cheaper than trying to hunt down 12 million people and deport them.