View Poll Results: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, focus on deporting dangerous criminals first.

    12 35.29%
  • No, this is the WH bypassing Congress to implement 'backdoor amnesty.

    20 58.82%
  • Other

    2 5.88%
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 95

Thread: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

  1. #21
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Whatever it takes? You mean whatever it takes to reduce illegal immigration to zero? Because that would certainly be more than our entire GDP. Do you mean spend enough so that the number of undocumented immigrants in the country goes down each year? Because we're already there- the number has been dropping for three years now. What exactly do you mean? Specifics, not slogans.
    Number 1...run over the border pregnant and we get the privledge of paying for the birth and hospital care and it could be millions if theres mother or baby complications..and when its all said and done...we make your child a citizen so proponents of illegal immigration can whine OH YOU CANT SPLIT UP FAMILIES...whos kidding who...NO baby born of illegal immigrants should be a citizen number 1, number two ENFORCE huge fines for any employer that hires an illegal immigrant, get caught to many times, go to jail......put troops on the border when you catch them coming over...pile them in trucks and drive them to the mexican border...as soon as an illegal is identified...drive him to the border...thats if anyone wanted illegal immigration stopped...only the victims of illegal immigration want it stopped...the taxpayers the people that live lousy lives who live on the border and the victims of the criminals....All we have to do to slow illegal immigration down to a trickle is to let them know WERE SERIOUS , dont need fences...dont need more bureaucracies...just need to get serious.

  2. #22
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    I'd like to see the budget for deportations raised to the $40 billion figure that you just pulled out of your ass.

    The ENTIRE department of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is budgeted at $11.84 Billion (2012)
    The ENTIRE department of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is budgeted at $5.82 Billion (2012)
    Yeah, so that's $17 billion right there. The Secure Border Initiative is the budget center for creating the fence at about $2 billion. US Citizenship and Immigration Services runs just under $3 billion. The DoJ's immigration enforcement office is around $1 billion. So we're up to $23 billion so far. Then you have state and local enforcement, detention costs, court costs, e-verify, etc. You also have a large portion of the Coast Guard's budget that is focused on immigration enforcement.

  3. #23
    Sage
    lpast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fla
    Last Seen
    05-21-16 @ 10:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    13,565

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Yeah, so that's $17 billion right there. The Secure Border Initiative is the budget center for creating the fence at about $2 billion. US Citizenship and Immigration Services runs just under $3 billion. The DoJ's immigration enforcement office is around $1 billion. So we're up to $23 billion so far. Then you have state and local enforcement, detention costs, court costs, e-verify, etc. You also have a large portion of the Coast Guard's budget that is focused on immigration enforcement.
    Everything in this post...says STOP ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION....the fence is dead...obama killed it.
    Like I said all we have to do to get illegal immigration to a trickle is make a few changes...and let them know WE ARE SERIOUS and most will stop coming...no fences, no stealthfighters flying over head, no special ops, just troops on the border temporarily till they know were serious then border patrol can be beefed a little more...its not going to stop entirely...but we have to stop this bleeding.....but I doubt we will

  4. #24
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    Number 1...run over the border pregnant and we get the privledge of paying for the birth and hospital care and it could be millions if theres mother or baby complications..and when its all said and done...we make your child a citizen so proponents of illegal immigration can whine OH YOU CANT SPLIT UP FAMILIES...whos kidding who...NO baby born of illegal immigrants should be a citizen number 1
    Er, that would INCREASE illegal immigration. You'd be classifying a whole new group of millions of people as illegal immigrants.

    But, regardless, you need a constitutional amendment to do that. No way that happens.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    number two ENFORCE huge fines for any employer that hires an illegal immigrant
    Yeah, that has been one of Obama's main pushes. Very successful so far.

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    put troops on the border
    If you took our entire military, even at it's currently ultra inflated size, and you stationed every single person- that means every accountant and janitor that works for the military, not just active duty soldiers- along the entire US border 24 hours a day working in shifts, then there would be approximately 2,000 feet between one military person and the next. Plenty of room for somebody to slip through. Plus you have something like 100,000 of those huge shipping containers a day coming in to the US, around 1 million people legally crossing the border each day, planes, cruise ships to be searched, etc... And even if you secured the entire border 100% somehow, a huge portion of undocumented immigrants are people who overstayed visas, so it wouldn't help with them at all. Not really the complete solution one might have assumed even if we completely withdrew from all military obligations and ventures around the world, completely retooled the entire military into purely a border patrol, and kept it at approximately half of our federal budget.

    What you are proposing is spending approximately $1 trillion/year trying to solve a problem that only costs us around $30 billion/year in social services. And even at the $1 trillion/year level, all we can really expect is maybe a 50% reduction or so. I don't think that makes sense to spend $1 trillion just to save $30 billion.

    Besides, if we are going to do a no-holds-barred, no-budget-is-too-big all out law enforcement blitz on some crime, why pick illegal immigration? Why not focus those resources on a more serious type of crime like murder or rape?

    Quote Originally Posted by lpast View Post
    when you catch them coming over...pile them in trucks and drive them to the mexican border...as soon as an illegal is identified...drive him to the border...
    If they catch somebody as they are crossing the border that is what they do. But, once somebody is inside the US then they need to have due process. We don't allow the government to apply such a massive punishment to people as deportation just on the suspicion of a law enforcement officer. That would be straight up tyranny.
    Last edited by teamosil; 08-22-11 at 01:46 AM.

  5. #25
    Ideologically Impure
    Simon W. Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Fayettenam
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,933
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Who here expects that we actually will deport all of them?

    If we're not going to deport all 12mil of them, then we should prioritize.

    If we are going to deport all of them, then there's no need to prioritize.


    Who here expects that we actually will deport all of them?
    I may be wrong.

  6. #26
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by spud_meister View Post
    Obama's basically taking the approach of "I'm not going to stop it, I'm not even gonna try to remedy the overall situation, but I'll try and minimise the worst parts of it", which makes sense, it's pragmatic, but I disagree with it.
    For all intents and purposes this is purely meant to be a stopgap measure until actual immigration reform is once again on the table, and Congress gets off its ass and does something.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #27
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    I'd like to see the budget for deportations raised to the $40 billion figure that you just pulled out of your ass.

    The ENTIRE department of U.S. Customs and Border Protection is budgeted at $11.84 Billion (2012)
    The ENTIRE department of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is budgeted at $5.82 Billion (2012)

    Where did you get that $40 billion figure from, one of those pro-illegal alien websites that you reference in other posts dealing with these issues?
    And what makes you think those two agencies are the only ones responsible? What about USCIS? DOJ? The Coast Guard? State and local governments that work with the federal agencies?
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  8. #28
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by Simon W. Moon View Post
    Who here expects that we actually will deport all of them?

    If we're not going to deport all 12mil of them, then we should prioritize.

    If we are going to deport all of them, then there's no need to prioritize.


    Who here expects that we actually will deport all of them?
    When you have to institute a triage system you have to prioritize but you also have to remain flexible.

    It's fine to focus on deporting criminals as a first priority but that doesn't mean that one should coddle non-violent criminals who are criminally here. Nor does it mean that one should catch and release illegal aliens who could be deported without putting up a legal fight. Nor does it mean that one has to shut down help from other state-level agencies who can assist federal efforts.

    Obama, as is expected, is going about this all wrong. He should stop fighting against existing federal procedures which authorize state police to arrest illegal aliens. He should double-down on that. Pick the easy fruit first - sophisticated drug traffickers are not the low hanging fruit, the require a lot of resources to catch. The amount of resources required to round up 200 illegals at a plant would yield greater utility than devoting all those resources to building a case against some criminal. Taking away 3% of the resources directed towards the criminals will return more than 3% benefit.

    Deporting 20 million illegals will improve life for American citizens. Labor scarcity will mean more Americans going back to work. That's good for Obama and for America.

  9. #29
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    When you have to institute a triage system you have to prioritize but you also have to remain flexible.

    It's fine to focus on deporting criminals as a first priority but that doesn't mean that one should coddle non-violent criminals who are criminally here. Nor does it mean that one should catch and release illegal aliens who could be deported without putting up a legal fight. Nor does it mean that one has to shut down help from other state-level agencies who can assist federal efforts.

    Obama, as is expected, is going about this all wrong. He should stop fighting against existing federal procedures which authorize state police to arrest illegal aliens. He should double-down on that. Pick the easy fruit first - sophisticated drug traffickers are not the low hanging fruit, the require a lot of resources to catch. The amount of resources required to round up 200 illegals at a plant would yield greater utility than devoting all those resources to building a case against some criminal. Taking away 3% of the resources directed towards the criminals will return more than 3% benefit.
    This sounds suspiciously like you're saying "who cares about the reality as long as it looks good on paper"... Deporting 1 hardened criminal is more beneficial than deporting 1,000 nannies and migrant laborers. In fact, the later is probably harmful.

    Besides, it is WAAAAY easier to deport a real criminal than to deport a non-criminal. Unless they are an actual citizen, committing a felony is enough to get them deported. 1/2 the possible defenses they could present are off the table as soon as they've committed a felony. Not to mention the sympathy of the judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Labor scarcity will mean more Americans going back to work. That's good for Obama and for America.
    No it won't. Scarcity in the sub minimum wage labor market means businesses shutting down and all the citizens that work for those businesses looking for work.

  10. #30
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: Do You Agree With [Obama's] New Approach to Deportations?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    This sounds suspiciously like you're saying "who cares about the reality as long as it looks good on paper"... Deporting 1 hardened criminal is more beneficial than deporting 1,000 nannies and migrant laborers. In fact, the later is probably harmful.
    It takes a lot of resources to identity criminal suspects, then to build cases against them, and then to track them down and arrest them. Criminals inhabit a shadow world that is darker than the world inhabited by illegal aliens. Rooting out these criminals is very resource intensive. Rooting out 1,000 nannies is much, much easier, same with migrant workers.

    No it won't. Scarcity in the sub minimum wage labor market means businesses shutting down and all the citizens that work for those businesses looking for work.
    If a business is not viable if it must pay legal wages, then society subsidizing the operation of that business is only making society poorer. Stopping the provision of a subsidy makes one wealthier.

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •