Deportations

[Maria Billingsley]

My question for those who oppose the plan. Is there any level of deportation you would agree with? Any common ground at all?

How can there be common ground when the level of hypocrisy is based on ignorance of the truth? What is that truth? Let me tell you...75% of the workforce in agriculture is filled with undocumented workers. Mass deportation means no food on your table. Let us reason people!

I oppose!

 

[BCP1928]

How can there be common ground when the level of hypocrisy is based on ignorance of the truth? What is that truth? Let me tell you...75% of the workforce in agriculture is filled with undocumented workers. Mass deportation means no food on your table. Let us reason people!

I oppose!

Those workers are perfectly safe under a Trump administration so long as they don't claim asylum or refugee status.

 

[Zaha Torte]

"Deport them all" isn't a reasonable starting place... if someone was brought here when they were 2 (illegally) by their parents due to no fault of their own, but have lived here for the last 18 years, sending them back to a country (that they have no recollection of and maybe don't even speak the language of) at age 20 is obviously cruel.

Eighteen years is a long time to not go through the process of becoming a US citizen.

This is evidence that they and their parents are not willing to be productive members of society and are willing to commit all kinds of generational fraud.

There are pathways to citizenship even for the illegal aliens.

I am in the "all should report for possible deport" starting place. They are in no position to negotiate.

 

[BCP1928]

Eighteen years is a long time to not go through the process of becoming a US citizen.

This is evidence that they and their parents are not willing to be productive members of society and are willing to commit all kinds of generational fraud.

There are pathways to citizenship even for the illegal aliens.

I am in the "all should report for possible deport" starting place. They are in no position to negotiate.

What make you think they have not been productive members of society?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Those workers are perfectly safe under a Trump administration so long as they don't claim asylum or refugee status.

And where did you get this information?

 

[BCP1928]

And where did you get this information?

It has long been the tradition in this country to allow people to sneak in to work here illegally. I don't see that changing under a Trump administration. He has even employed such people himself. The same with visa overstays. They make up something like half of the illegals in the country, yet no serious effort has ever been made to detect and deport them. The hue and cry over illegal immigrants didn't start until the "convoys," large numbers of people travelling in a group to cross the border openly and seek asylum. Those are the people the Trump administration wants to be rid of.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

How can there be common ground when the level of hypocrisy is based on ignorance of the truth? What is that truth? Let me tell you...75% of the workforce in agriculture is filled with undocumented workers. Mass deportation means no food on your table. Let us reason people!

I oppose!

I've never been a fan of the "who's going to pick the strawberries?" argument.

To me, that's a rooted in a premise that's almost as concerning as the racism that underpins the "ship 'em all back" arguments.

It's basically suggesting that they should be given clemency and allowed to stay so that they can continue to function as "cheap labor"

Which actually undercuts some of the left's other premises with regards to wages and workers' rights.

They'll tout the economic benefits that are provided by undocumented workers, but those benefits are largely centered around the fact that they'll do manual tedious labor for hours on end at hourly rates that Americans would thumb their nose at. (and at rates that would actually be illegal if things weren't being done under the table)

If those jobs working the fields paid a living wage (which is one of the things Democrats often advocate for), then there'd be no benefit, correct?

Because if the rule was "this has to pay $18/hour + benefits, regardless of citizenship status", then A) there would be more Americans who would want to do it, and B) there'd be no financial difference (from a supply-side standpoint) between hiring an American worker vs. an undocumented worker.

 

[tampasteve]

Very valid concern…,families belong together…

I 100% agree, they do belong together - and they can leave together.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you read what you wrote, many of these people have been, Federally sentenced, in Federal prisons, detained or flagged as a criminal. That being said, we have " due process" in the USA. Due process is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit the government from depriving individuals of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The due process you mention is a constitutional protection, and the constitutional protections for non-citizens are not equal to that of the constitutional protection of US citizens.

Cornell law professor Stephen W. Yale-Loehr (via PolitiFact)
"Yes, immigrants do have constitutional rights, but those rights are not equal to U.S. citizens," he said. "They have due process rights, but when it comes to immigration court proceedings, those rights are often watered down versions."

"Undocumented immigrants have many constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and religion. But they don’t share all the constitutional rights of citizens.

For example, some undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings have not gotten due process in court, and they don’t have a right to a government-paid lawyer in immigration court.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I've never been a fan of the "who's going to pick the strawberries?" argument.

To me, that's a rooted in a premise that's almost as concerning as the racism that underpins the "ship 'em all back" arguments.

It's basically suggesting that they should be given clemency and allowed to stay so that they can continue to function as "cheap labor"

Which actually undercuts some of the left's other premises with regards to wages and workers' rights.

They'll tout the economic benefits that are provided by undocumented workers, but those benefits are largely centered around the fact that they'll do manual tedious labor for hours on end at hourly rates that Americans would thumb their nose at. (and at rates that would actually be illegal if things weren't being done under the table)

If those jobs working the fields paid a living wage (which is one of the things Democrats often advocate for), then there'd be no benefit, correct?

Because if the rule was "this has to pay $18/hour + benefits, regardless of citizenship status", then A) there would be more Americans who would want to do it, and B) there'd be no financial difference (from a supply-side standpoint) between hiring an American worker vs. an undocumented worker.

If the USA streamlines the H2A and all undocumented became documented then that strawberry would be exponentially more expensive. As I recall, inflation was the one reason Trump was elected. The second was " mass deportation " . The two creates an oxymoron. But then again, pretty much everything he touches eventually goes down the road of destruction. You'll see.
Thanks for engaging.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The due process you mention is a constitutional protection, and the constitutional protections for non-citizens are not equal to that of the constitutional protection of US citizens.

Cornell law professor Stephen W. Yale-Loehr (via PolitiFact)
"Yes, immigrants do have constitutional rights, but those rights are not equal to U.S. citizens," he said. "They have due process rights, but when it comes to immigration court proceedings, those rights are often watered down versions."

"Undocumented immigrants have many constitutional rights such as freedom of speech and religion. But they don’t share all the constitutional rights of citizens.

For example, some undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings have not gotten due process in court, and they don’t have a right to a government-paid lawyer in immigration court.

Thankfully you are in great error:
No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

 

[BCP1928]

I've never been a fan of the "who's going to pick the strawberries?" argument.

To me, that's a rooted in a premise that's almost as concerning as the racism that underpins the "ship 'em all back" arguments.

It's basically suggesting that they should be given clemency and allowed to stay so that they can continue to function as "cheap labor"

Which actually undercuts some of the left's other premises with regards to wages and workers' rights.

They'll tout the economic benefits that are provided by undocumented workers, but those benefits are largely centered around the fact that they'll do manual tedious labor for hours on end at hourly rates that Americans would thumb their nose at. (and at rates that would actually be illegal if things weren't being done under the table)

If those jobs working the fields paid a living wage (which is one of the things Democrats often advocate for), then there'd be no benefit, correct?

Because if the rule was "this has to pay $18/hour + benefits, regardless of citizenship status", then A) there would be more Americans who would want to do it, and B) there'd be no financial difference (from a supply-side standpoint) between hiring an American worker vs. an undocumented worker.

That's exactly why it's the asylum seekers have to go, but not the illegals. You can call asylum seekers "illegal" all you want, but the fact is that they are here legally and cannot be exploited in that way.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Thankfully you are in great error:
No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

The Cornell Law professor I quoted would seem to disagree.

Taking your bold part as a blanket statement...any form of taxation that I didn't consent to is "depriving me of my property", and any form of licensing or regulation that I didn't consent to is "depriving me of my liberty" if we took it with that high level of semantic literalness.

 

[BCP1928]

The Cornell Law professor I quoted would seem to disagree.

Taking your bold part as a blanket statement...any form of taxation that I didn't consent to is "depriving me of my property", and any form of licensing or regulation that I didn't consent to is "depriving me of my liberty" if we took it with that high level of semantic literalness.

The operative word in that statement is "person."

 

[rjs330]

Youre venturing out beyond what I said. Im distinguishing between the kind of people who intend to harm others for their own benefit, and those who dont. Its an apples oranges difference, even if theyre all fruits.

I'm not even stating what I think the policy going forward should be for these various apples and oranges. Except that we can safely consider these two categories quite separately if we're inclined. You even said you might consider that as a "middle ground" solution in your own OP - if I understood you.

And of course I resent Trumps vile language. What decent person wouldnt? "Poisoning the blood of our country." But thats beside the point Im making.

I'm actually okay with separating them out. Let's start with the criminals that have done things to land themselves in jail. I say let them finish their sentences and then be deported. I would then begin with the gangs like MS13 who are filled with illegals.

Once that has been completed we start working on those who aren't violent offenders, but are still here illegally. I would combine that with strict enforcement against any business who has hired them. Including making the businesses check to see if the person is legal through the verify procedure.

I would leave asylees alone at this point.
A progressive approach combined with enforcement against businesses will begin to alter the landscape for the future.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Taking your bold part as a blanket statement...any form of taxation that I didn't consent to is "depriving me of my property", and any form of licensing or regulation that I didn't consent to is "depriving me of my liberty" if we took it with that high level of semantic literalness.

The legislative branch passing a law that covers taxation, or passing a regulation, constitutes "due process of law". Courts are only required as part of due process when there is a need to establish whether a law applies to an entity, which, in the case of tax laws and regulations is generally pretty straightforward. If you don't want to pay your taxes or follow a regulation, then you are entitled to the opportunity to establish that the law does not apply to you.

 

[rjs330]

Would they be considered refugees seeking asylum or no?

I'm fine with asylum seekers. However we see a lot of fraud with that. I would like to see a change in the laws surrounding seekers. I would like to see them put in a secure facility until their hearing is completed. Then if found to be in need of asylum they are welcome to be part of our society.

 

[rjs330]

That has always been the case. Illegal economic migrants and visa overstays--those who are here illegally--are generally safe as long as they keep their heads down and stay out of trouble. It's asylum seekers--the "convoys"--and refugees who seem to be the most at risk for deportation under a Trump administration.

That needs to stop eventually. I'd focus on the others first. That shoild keep us busy enough for a bit.

 

[dogs4thewin]

My concern is separating children from their parents again.

Real simple parents have a choice take your kids with you OR you can put them in the foster care stsyem. With option A the kid will be treated as any other citizen that left the country in that on their 18th birthday that will be allowed to reenter that as you or I would be if we had left country for a period for whatever reason.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Apples and oranges.
You hold undocumented = robbing bank?
That sounds just to you?

Well, they did break the law just by being here if they are undocunmented