• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Deportation Question.

Could you deport them personally or not?

  • Total voters
    55
Hard Truth said:
The issues are related because the near impossibility of legally immigrating if you are poor encourages illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

So the poor of the world should have free access to America and those of means should wait in line?
 
Dittohead not! said:
perhaps just for the ones who have already walked over the border with the full complicity of the US federal government, and who have established themselves here as de facto Americans with children who are natural born citizens.

But, no, of course we can't absorb the whole third world.
Click to expand...

But any who happen to be lucky enough to find a way to sneak in, welcome to America?
 
CanadaJohn said:
So the poor of the world should have free access to America and those of means should wait in line?
Click to expand...

How about a quick and fair process that doesn't require a lawyer, tens of thousands of dollars and years of waiting?
 
Hard Truth said:
How about a quick and fair process that doesn't require a lawyer, tens of thousands of dollars and years of waiting?
Click to expand...

Do you really have such little regard for the value of America as a country and the privilege/right of citizenship? I doubt your parents, their parents, and generations of parents before them fought to create and protect your country so it could so easily be overrun and given away.
 
Mason66 said:
Why would a country want poor people to come there and be a drain on society?...
Click to expand...

People from war-torn and extremely poor countries need the help and are willing to do the work and innovation that makes this country functional. Rich and highly skilled people (i.e. doctors) can live comfortably almost anywhere they want to go and don't usually need our help.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Do you really have such little regard for the value of America as a country and the privilege/right of citizenship? I doubt your parents, their parents, and generations of parents before them fought to create and protect your country so it could so easily be overrun and given away.
Click to expand...

My grandparents saved their lives by coming to this country and avoiding the Nazis and pogroms. They did not have to wait for years and pay tens of thousands of dollars for fees and lawyers to do so. If they came later they probably would have been turned away and been killed in a concentration camp.

"...America's immigration laws placed quotas on the number of people allowed to enter the United States from other countries. In 1939, the quota allowed for 27,370 German citizens to immigrate to the United States. In 1938, more than 300,000 Germans-mostly Jewish refugees-had applied for U.S. visas (entry permits). A little over 20,000 applications were approved. Beyond the strict national quotas, the United States openly denied visas to any immigrant "likely to become a public charge." This ruling proved to be a serious problem for many Jewish refugees. Most had lost everything when the Nazis took power, and they might need government assistance after they immigrated to the United States.

Shortly after she was appointed to the cabinet, Frances Perkins, President Roosevelt's secretary of labor, proposed an executive order on refugees and immigration. Perkins suggested that the State Department should give priority to immigrants seeking refuge from racial or religious persecution. The State Department objected to this order because it would antagonize relations with Germany and alienate jobless American citizens. FDR never issued the order, and State Department officials in Europe continued to reject many visa applications from Jewish refugees.

In September 1935, Nazi Germany passed laws that deprived German Jews of their citizenship. Without citizenship, Jews were legally defenseless. Many lost their jobs and property. Hitler also targeted with violence and persecution countless thousands of gypsies, Catholics, homosexuals, and even the physically and mentally impaired. With so many Germans fleeing their homeland, the State Department temporarily eased immigration quotas. In 1936, the State Department approved visas for about 7,000 German refugees. By 1938, that number had increased to more than 20,000. But an opinion poll revealed that 82 percent of Americans still opposed admitting large numbers of Jewish refugees into the United States. Despite pleas by American human-rights organizations, the U.S. State Department refused to increase the German quota any further.
European refugees

In May 1939, only a few months before war began in Europe, a passenger ship called the St. Louis left Germany carrying nearly a thousand refugees, most of them Jews. Many of these people had already qualified for, but had not yet received, American visas. They arranged for temporary Cuban tourist visas that would let them wait outside of Germany for U.S. visas. When the St. Louis reached Havana, however, the Cuban government had changed its visa regulations. It refused to allow most of the refugees to land.

Forced to leave Cuban waters, the St. Louis sailed up the Florida coast. The U.S. Coast Guard followed close behind to prevent any passengers from swimming ashore. The State Department refused to allow the refugees to land without special legislation by Congress or an executive order from the president. Efforts by American Jewish organizations to work out a compromise failed. The desperate passengers aboard the St. Louis sent President Roosevelt a telegram pleading their case. He never replied.

Political realities may have influenced Roosevelt's decision to remain silent. Most Americans opposed entering the approaching European war. Many felt that America's best interest lay in avoiding foreign conflicts. Others were disillusioned by the U.S. intervention in World War I and wanted to avoid the loss of American lives. These views had strong support in Congress. In addition, Roosevelt knew that the United States was not yet prepared for war and was reluctant to antagonize the Nazi regime.

Finally, the St. Louis returned to Europe and several nations granted asylum to the refugees. But when Hitler's troops marched through Europe, the Nazis eventually caught most of the St. Louis' ill-fated passengers and sent them to concentration camps.

On the eve of World War II, a bill that would have admitted Jewish refugee children above the regular quota limits was introduced in Congress. President Roosevelt took no position on the bill, and it died in committee in the summer of 1939. Polls at the time indicated that two-thirds of Americans opposed taking in Jewish refugee children..."
History Lesson 5: U.S. Immigration Policy and Hitler's Holocaust
 
Bodhisattva said:
Depends... do they pay taxes and were they good contributing citizens? If so they do massive community service, pay fines and vote Republican. If not deport them that day with the kids and tell the kids that their parents are law breakers that just screwed up their lives...

...and your idea of a "couple of years" equalling 15 years differs from my take on what a couple of years means...
Click to expand...

I worded that poorly. I meant the hypothetical couple lives here a couple of years before they had their first kid, now their oldest kid is 13, thus they have lived and worked here illegally for about 15 years.
 
ocean515 said:
You have mistaken my emotion. I have great compassion for those who struggle, no matter where they live.

I have zero compassion for those who come here illegally, with no concern at all about the difficult situation they chose to put their families in, who demand I eat their choices and take care of them, and then scream about what might happen to their children they personally chose to put in a terrible situation.

Perhaps that's the difference between us. I see reality, and you see something else.
Click to expand...

I don't think you see reality at all. You don't seem to realize they make the judgement that coming here is better for their family then forcing them to endure the conditions and hardships of where they lived in their country of origin.
 
CanadaJohn said:
But any who happen to be lucky enough to find a way to sneak in, welcome to America?
Click to expand...

If, as I said, they came here with the full complicity of the federal government (as any who have arrived to date have done), have established themselves as de facto Americans, as most of the ones who came years ago have done, have children who are American citizens, then yes, I think we should re admit them legally from any American consulate in their home country.

The blame game makes no sense. Our own elected representatives are as much to blame for illegal immigration as the illegals themselves are.

First, we need to acknowledge that the government is the problem. Next, we need to secure the border. Then, we need to fine the (bleep!) out of anyone who hires illegals, Then, we need to make it possible for the people who have had the moxie to have crossed an international border and to have worked, paid taxes, and raised children while living in the shadows afraid of deportation to come out of the closet (so to speak) and live openly as Americans.

But, as the same people who like the cheap labor of illegal aliens are the ones who have undue influence on the government "of the people", none of the above is likely to happen. My prediction is that illegal immigration will continue for the foreseeable future, and that the federal government, both parties, will do no more than leap and hoot and blame each other.
 
Hard Truth said:
My grandparents saved their lives by coming to this country and avoiding the Nazis and pogroms. They did not have to wait for years and pay tens of thousands of dollars for fees and lawyers to do so. If they came later they probably would have been turned away and been killed in a concentration camp.

"...America's immigration laws placed quotas on the number of people allowed to enter the United States from other countries. In 1939, the quota allowed for 27,370 German citizens to immigrate to the United States. In 1938, more than 300,000 Germans-mostly Jewish refugees-had applied for U.S. visas (entry permits). A little over 20,000 applications were approved. Beyond the strict national quotas, the United States openly denied visas to any immigrant "likely to become a public charge." This ruling proved to be a serious problem for many Jewish refugees. Most had lost everything when the Nazis took power, and they might need government assistance after they immigrated to the United States.

Shortly after she was appointed to the cabinet, Frances Perkins, President Roosevelt's secretary of labor, proposed an executive order on refugees and immigration. Perkins suggested that the State Department should give priority to immigrants seeking refuge from racial or religious persecution. The State Department objected to this order because it would antagonize relations with Germany and alienate jobless American citizens. FDR never issued the order, and State Department officials in Europe continued to reject many visa applications from Jewish refugees.

In September 1935, Nazi Germany passed laws that deprived German Jews of their citizenship. Without citizenship, Jews were legally defenseless. Many lost their jobs and property. Hitler also targeted with violence and persecution countless thousands of gypsies, Catholics, homosexuals, and even the physically and mentally impaired. With so many Germans fleeing their homeland, the State Department temporarily eased immigration quotas. In 1936, the State Department approved visas for about 7,000 German refugees. By 1938, that number had increased to more than 20,000. But an opinion poll revealed that 82 percent of Americans still opposed admitting large numbers of Jewish refugees into the United States. Despite pleas by American human-rights organizations, the U.S. State Department refused to increase the German quota any further.
European refugees

In May 1939, only a few months before war began in Europe, a passenger ship called the St. Louis left Germany carrying nearly a thousand refugees, most of them Jews. Many of these people had already qualified for, but had not yet received, American visas. They arranged for temporary Cuban tourist visas that would let them wait outside of Germany for U.S. visas. When the St. Louis reached Havana, however, the Cuban government had changed its visa regulations. It refused to allow most of the refugees to land.

Forced to leave Cuban waters, the St. Louis sailed up the Florida coast. The U.S. Coast Guard followed close behind to prevent any passengers from swimming ashore. The State Department refused to allow the refugees to land without special legislation by Congress or an executive order from the president. Efforts by American Jewish organizations to work out a compromise failed. The desperate passengers aboard the St. Louis sent President Roosevelt a telegram pleading their case. He never replied.

Political realities may have influenced Roosevelt's decision to remain silent. Most Americans opposed entering the approaching European war. Many felt that America's best interest lay in avoiding foreign conflicts. Others were disillusioned by the U.S. intervention in World War I and wanted to avoid the loss of American lives. These views had strong support in Congress. In addition, Roosevelt knew that the United States was not yet prepared for war and was reluctant to antagonize the Nazi regime.

Finally, the St. Louis returned to Europe and several nations granted asylum to the refugees. But when Hitler's troops marched through Europe, the Nazis eventually caught most of the St. Louis' ill-fated passengers and sent them to concentration camps.

On the eve of World War II, a bill that would have admitted Jewish refugee children above the regular quota limits was introduced in Congress. President Roosevelt took no position on the bill, and it died in committee in the summer of 1939. Polls at the time indicated that two-thirds of Americans opposed taking in Jewish refugee children..."
History Lesson 5: U.S. Immigration Policy and Hitler's Holocaust
Click to expand...

I honour your grandparents and those who struggled with them. But with all due respect, that's an entirely different circumstance to what is happening here. I could be wrong, but I believe, just like here in Canada, the US still takes in thousands of refugees from dangerous and/or war torn countries throughout the world as well as often tens of thousands from places on the planet that suffer catastrophic natural disasters, such as the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean/Indonesia and earthquakes in Pakistan and elsewhere. We also are taking in thousands displaced from the war in Syria over the past couple of years.

These are far different from those seeking economic opportunity/relief from poverty in otherwise stable environments.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I worded that poorly. I meant the hypothetical couple lives here a couple of years before they had their first kid, now their oldest kid is 13, thus they have lived and worked here illegally for about 15 years.
Click to expand...

I was just messin' with you... ;)
 
Dittohead not! said:
If, as I said, they came here with the full complicity of the federal government (as any who have arrived to date have done), have established themselves as de facto Americans, as most of the ones who came years ago have done, have children who are American citizens, then yes, I think we should re admit them legally from any American consulate in their home country.

The blame game makes no sense. Our own elected representatives are as much to blame for illegal immigration as the illegals themselves are.

First, we need to acknowledge that the government is the problem. Next, we need to secure the border. Then, we need to fine the (bleep!) out of anyone who hires illegals, Then, we need to make it possible for the people who have had the moxie to have crossed an international border and to have worked, paid taxes, and raised children while living in the shadows afraid of deportation to come out of the closet (so to speak) and live openly as Americans.

But, as the same people who like the cheap labor of illegal aliens are the ones who have undue influence on the government "of the people", none of the above is likely to happen. My prediction is that illegal immigration will continue for the foreseeable future, and that the federal government, both parties, will do no more than leap and hoot and blame each other.
Click to expand...

Can't argue with much of what you've said - but it still doesn't change my position on the question in the OP.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I don't think you see reality at all. You don't seem to realize they make the judgement that coming here is better for their family then forcing them to endure the conditions and hardships of where they lived in their country of origin.
Click to expand...

Really? Rather than staying where they were and doing something about their conditions, just as the founders of this country did, these people came here illegally, knowing that a some point the bill for their illegal activity could come true. It doesn't matter what judgment or irrational decisions they made. They made the choice and crying about something they knew would likely happens makes them less than heroic, and far less than those who equally suffered, but followed the law to get here.

These people spit in the face of every immigrant who sacrificed everything to come here legally.
 
ocean515 said:
Really? Rather than staying where they were and doing something about their conditions, just as the founders of this country did, these people came here illegally, knowing that a some point the bill for their illegal activity could come true. It doesn't matter what judgment or irrational decisions they made. They made the choice and crying about something they knew would likely happens makes them less than heroic, and far less than those who equally suffered, but followed the law to get here.

These people spit in the face of every immigrant who sacrificed everything to come here legally.
Click to expand...

God what a dream world you live in. The founders of this country were almost all rich aristocratic white men and you are comparing them to people that live in abject poverty. Do you honestly think the solution for someone living in abject poverty in the middle of Honduras is to take on the local drug cartels? Mind you, these cartels are so brutal and violent they make ISIS look like the Peace Corps. I don't recall the British under King George beheading journalists and slaughtering students.

Look, we obviously can't take on everyone facing hardship on earth. However, I don't blame them for trying to come here at all.
 
Dittohead not! said:
There are not many ways. It is extremely difficult to immigrate to the United States, and lots of people who would like to do so. We can't possibly take them all on and continue as a modern nation.

That's why we need real immigration reform that acknowledges that our government has been ignoring the problem for decades, that there are millions of people who would come here in a heartbeat if they could, and that our federal government needs to step up to the plate and put an end to illegal immigration once and for all. Neither separating families, nor deporting people who have lived their whole lives in the US, nor a blanket amnesty for all comers, nor a continuation of the current situation is in the best interests of the Unites States.

If only we had a functioning Congress, perhaps such reform could be passed.
Click to expand...

Apparently there are quite a few ways as we average about 1 million immigrants receiving legal status every single year. In fact I am pretty sure that we take on more immigrants than pretty much any other country in the world.
 
CanadaJohn said:
....These are far different from those seeking economic opportunity/relief from poverty in otherwise stable environments.
Click to expand...

In addition to poverty, the people of some regions in Mexico and several other Central American countries are living with extremely violent environments. That is why there was that rush of unaccompanied children arriving here recently.

"...Under both international and American law, Esperanza and Angelica Ramirez have a strong case for asylum in the United States. But the United States has a particular moral responsibility in the Central America refugee crisis that goes even deeper. Americans, especially young Americans, probably know more about the 1994 genocide in Rwanda than they do about how their own government funded murderous right-wing dictatorships in Central America back in the 1980s. The Reagan administration’s violent and immoral policy included $5 billion in aid to the military/landowner alliance in El Salvador, which prolonged an awful conflict in which some 75,000 people died—a toll proportionally equivalent to the casualty rate in the American Civil War. But once shaky peace agreements were signed in the 1990s, the United States walked away, leaving the shattered region to rebuild on its own.....

The very name of one of the giant criminal gangs—18th Street, or Calle 18—reveals the origins of the current crisis. Eighteenth Street is not in San Pedro Sula, or in San Salvador, or in any of the other Central American cities torn apart by gang warfare. Eighteenth Street is actually in Los Angeles, where the gang and its rival, the Mara Salvatrucha, were born among young Salvadorans who had been displaced by the civil war in the 1980s. After the United States started deporting gang members, they arrived back in Central America, some barely speaking Spanish and knowing only how to do one thing: grab the weapons the region was already awash in and start killing. During the decade-long civil war, family and community life had weakened, so the newly arrived gangs partly filled a vacuum.

America’s responsibility in Honduras, Esperanza and Angelica Ramirez’s home nation, is even more recent. In 2009, the Honduran military overthrew the elected government, and the Obama administration accepted the coup over the protests of brave pro-democracy forces there..."
How the US.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They lived in a dangerous place with no opportunity and came here looking for work its as simple as that. Its easy to judge people when you get be born here and get all the benefits in life that go along with that.

Regardless of whether we should deport them or not, the argument you are using is so xenophobic its bordering on sociopathic in its total lack of empathy.
Click to expand...
So are literally billions of other people. Just as the US can not and should not be the worlds police force we shouldnt and cant be the worlds savior.

I have no idea about others but for me it is not about having or not having empathy. It is about doing what is best for this country and that is it. At what point do we stop letting who ever just feels like it enter this country. At some point if we take on enough people than this country will be no better than the places they are coming from. Where is you empathy for you fellow Americans and our future grand-kids. Often times it is not in your best intrest to make decisions based on emotion and almost never is that a good idea for making laws.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
A man and his wife sneak across the border illegally from Mexico. After they live here for a couple of years they have a couple of kids. The kids are now age 9 and 13 and have lived here their whole lives. They don't speak much Spanish. They are enrolled in school and like all kids have friends and play sports and so on. The parents however have never obtained legal status despite the fact they have lived and worked here for 15 years.

It's entirely up to you, could you personally walk into their home, arrest the parents in front of their kids, bring them up before an immigration hearing where you sit as judge, and then deport them back to Mexico?
Click to expand...

If the children were born here, they would be American citizens and not subject to deportation. If the kids were born in another country and then brought here illegally- If I were the judge I would not separate the family. And I would absolutely deport the parents and, so, the kids would go with them.
 
kamikaze483 said:
If the children were born here, they would be American citizens and not subject to deportation. If the kids were born in another country and then brought here illegally- If I were the judge I would not separate the family. And I would absolutely deport the parents and, so, the kids would go with them.
Click to expand...

But thats the think, the kids are citizens the parents are not. Thus if you deport the parents the kids have to go with them, or the family is separated. This is a very common scenario unfortunately.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Those are PPP measures, so it takes into account Cost of Living.
Click to expand...

Actually no they don't. Sure they factor in some of the COL basics, but they don't address common cultural lifestyle items. And even for the basics they only look at the averages. The averages are not reflective of the reality. For instance, do you really need a phone if you're living out in the jungle somewhere growing and harvesting all your food? How about if you're living and working in an urban environment. Same with a car, or a Television, or water bills.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
But thats the think, the kids are citizens the parents are not. Thus if you deport the parents the kids have to go with them, or the family is separated. This is a very common scenario unfortunately.
Click to expand...

I'm certain that it is common. And awful. But it is a bad idea not to enforce the law. It encourages the continual violation of it- when all one has to do in order to get a free pass is have some babies. The path to citizenship should not be parenthood subsequent to illegal immigration. That is bad.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
But thats the think, the kids are citizens the parents are not. Thus if you deport the parents the kids have to go with them, or the family is separated. This is a very common scenario unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Again, it's the same with ANY law that is enforced. Parents go to prison, the children either go to live with a relative or CPS steps in.

Actually a better thing that the minor children go with the parents. But that's not what many illegals choose, they'd rather the children stay in country so they can cross illegally again and rinse, repeat.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
God what a dream world you live in. The founders of this country were almost all rich aristocratic white men and you are comparing them to people that live in abject poverty. Do you honestly think the solution for someone living in abject poverty in the middle of Honduras is to take on the local drug cartels? Mind you, these cartels are so brutal and violent they make ISIS look like the Peace Corps. I don't recall the British under King George beheading journalists and slaughtering students.

Look, we obviously can't take on everyone facing hardship on earth. However, I don't blame them for trying to come here at all.
Click to expand...

Dream world? Who fought the War of Independence, rich land owners? I'm sorry, but it seems rather pointless to go any further when you don't even have the history of hardship and sacrifice the founders of this country right.

Clichés aren't a substitute for fact, and the public hangings of people who opposed the King, along with other brutalities don't appear to be of any consequence to you.

The fact that the cultures south of the border have created and tolerated cartels and other despots for generation after generation should tell you all you need to know about the people who would flip the bird to our laws, and then demand we pay them as a reward.
 
kamikaze483 said:
I'm certain that it is common. And awful. But it is a bad idea not to enforce the law. It encourages the continual violation of it- when all one has to do in order to get a free pass is have some babies. The path to citizenship should not be parenthood subsequent to illegal immigration. That is bad.
Click to expand...

I largely agree with that, I just think its one of those things that makes sense at the macro level and gets really messy at the individual level.
 
The original hypothetical has the same person who walks into the house and arrests the illegal aliens--in front of their children, who apparently are not playing sports with their friends at the time--acting as the judge in their deportation hearing. We're supposed to be the arresting officer, and later we're supposed to be the judge in the same case. I guess Mr. Obama is not the only one who ignores the Constitution so casually.

In any event, I don't see how what I or anyone else here thinks should be done with these hypothetical people means anything. I'm sure Mr. Obama thinks the way things work is that he mulls an issue over and decides what the fair and righteous thing to do would be--and then just does it. And the law be damned. It seems like a lot of his acolytes think the same way. But that ain't how it works in a free country, which some of us have--naively, maybe--had always thought this was.

Here are few passages from Supreme Court decisions some people may find interesting:


[We]re we writing on a clean slate . . . since the intrinsic consequences of deportation are so close to punishment for crime, it might fairly be said that the Ex Post Facto Clause, even though applicable only to punitive legislation, should be applied to deportation. But the slate is not clean . . . it has been the unbroken rule of this Court that it has no application to deportation.
................
Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government. In the enforcement of these policies, the Executive Branch of the government must respect the procedural safeguards of due process. But that the formulation of these policies is entrusted exclusively to Congress has become about as firmly embedded in the legislative and judicial tissues of our body politic. (italics mine) Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522 (1954).


Whatever the rule may be concerning deportation of persons who have gained entry into the United States, it is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien . . . Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned. U.S. ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537 (1950).


t is important to underscore the limited scope of judicial inquiry into immigration legislation. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens. Our cases have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government's political departments largely immune from judicial control . . . in the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens. (italics mine) Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977).


In short,

Deportation is not punishment for a crime.

Congress has almost complete power to make policies on aliens. Courts are extremely reluctant to question what Congress decides.

The role of the Executive Branch is only to see that basic procedural due process is observed in deportations--i.e. that you get a hearing before a U.S. magistrate. And aliens who have not entered the U.S. may be excluded without any due process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom