• 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:
Why?

The people who hire illegal aliens provide an incentive to immigrate illegally, and profit and gain advantage over their law-abiding competitors by paying lower wages to illegal immigrants that they can with legal residents. If anyone is causing harm to our workers it is the businesses that profit from the cheap labor they obtain by exploiting illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

Because it not their fault. They shouldnt have to bend over to fix the problems the govt is responsible for. Punish the people sneaking in. Punish govt incompetence.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What is the rationale for that (bolded above) plan? The two parts are in direct conflict with each other. The "good" illegal aliens are to be made legal (based on them having jobs right?) but their "bad" employer is to be fined for having provided them the very job that made them "good" illegal aliens? That seems simply insane.
Click to expand...
Not really. If a way is open for illegals to gain legal status while in the US, then the floodgates will open for people hoping for amnesty once they get here, as happened back in '86. If the illegals have to go back to their home country to get legal status, then there won't be any such incentive. Therefore, there needs to be a way to incentivize leaving the country. Since they're mostly here for the jobs (the ones we'd want to keep are anyway), the best way to get them to leave is to make sure that their employers want them to leave, at least temporarily. Moreover, the ones who fail a background check could simply be denied re entry, and would have no reason not to just stay in the old country. We'd be rid of criminals, the illegals who are an asset would no longer have to hide out, and there would be no incentive for the millions more back home to start making travel plans and looking northward. It's a perfect compromise.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Not really. If a way is open for illegals to gain legal status while in the US, then the floodgates will open for people hoping for amnesty once they get here, as happened back in '86. If the illegals have to go back to their home country to get legal status, then there won't be any such incentive. Therefore, there needs to be a way to incentivize leaving the country. Since they're mostly here for the jobs (the ones we'd want to keep are anyway), the best way to get them to leave is to make sure that their employers want them to leave, at least temporarily. Moreover, the ones who fail a background check could simply be denied re entry, and would have no reason not to just stay in the old country. We'd be rid of criminals, the illegals who are an asset would no longer have to hide out, and there would be no incentive for the millions more back home to start making travel plans and looking northward. It's a perfect compromise.
Click to expand...

The idea of "self deportation", aka the Romney plan, still does not address what happens to anchor babies. These are US citizens that will surely return to the US but probably not as well educated as if they are permitted to remain. In essence, they still get the shaft whether voluntarily deported or forcibly deported.

Pretending that 5K ICE agents can enforce that no illegal alien employment policy is also a joke - we now use 10 times that many TSA agents just to enforce airport security How, exact;y, would you check for compliance by millions of US employers from large corporations to mom & pop operations and common folks hiring nannies, building contractors and lawn maintenance workers?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea of "self deportation", aka the Romney plan, still does not address what happens to anchor babies. These are US citizens that will surely return to the US but probably not as well educated as if they are permitted to remain. In essence, they still get the shaft whether voluntarily deported or forcibly deported.

Pretending that 5K ICE agents can enforce that no illegal alien employment policy is also a joke - we now use 10 times that many TSA agents just to enforce airport security How, exact;y, would you check for compliance by millions of US employers from large corporations to mom & pop operations and common folks hiring nannies, building contractors and lawn maintenance workers?
Click to expand...

The self deportation I'm talking about is really just a temporary deportation.

Would it really be that difficult to enforce the law? If so, then use fines to hire people to do it. Employers would get the message pretty quickly, and wouldn't wait to be fined anyway.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The self deportation I'm talking about is really just a temporary deportation.

Would it really be that difficult to enforce the law? If so, then use fines to hire people to do it. Employers would get the message pretty quickly, and wouldn't wait to be fined anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes it would be very difficult - just as hard as getting rid of drug dealers. I would venture to say that drug dealers are a very small number of folks compared to all US employers. How would you define "probable cause" in order to check the status of an employers staff? I can think of one very good one - in order to get Obama amnesty each illegal alien must name, and testify against, whoever had employed them. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes it would be very difficult - just as hard as getting rid of drug dealers. I would venture to say that drug dealers are a very small number of folks compared to all US employers. How would you define "probable cause" in order to check the status of an employers staff? I can think of one very good one - in order to get Obama amnesty each illegal alien must name, and testify against, whoever had employed them. ;)
Click to expand...

It's time to start thinking pragmatic, not ideological. It is far more pragmatic to fine employers than it is to try to deport millions of people, for example. The pragmatic way to get rid of most of the drug dealers is to make their enterprise unprofitable by legalizing most drugs, decriminalizing others. What we need is a pragmatic approach to reducing drug addiction, not an ideological "war on drugs" that has been proven not to work.

Get the employers jittery about fines, and they'll have a little talk with the employees that they know to be or suspect to be illegal. The ones who don't check out will be given a bit of vacation time to go back home and visit old friends, and maybe go by the American consulate while they're there.

As it is, illegals are more desirable as employees in jobs at the bottom rung, as they're unlikely to complain, to strike, or to go to authorities over unfair employment practices. They're not only cheap, but compliant. Right now, employers have an incentive to hire illegals over legal immigrants or citizens.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's time to start thinking pragmatic, not ideological. It is far more pragmatic to fine employers than it is to try to deport millions of people, for example. The pragmatic way to get rid of most of the drug dealers is to make their enterprise unprofitable by legalizing most drugs, decriminalizing others. What we need is a pragmatic approach to reducing drug addiction, not an ideological "war on drugs" that has been proven not to work.

Get the employers jittery about fines, and they'll have a little talk with the employees that they know to be or suspect to be illegal. The ones who don't check out will be given a bit of vacation time to go back home and visit old friends, and maybe go by the American consulate while they're there.

As it is, illegals are more desirable as employees in jobs at the bottom rung, as they're unlikely to complain, to strike, or to go to authorities over unfair employment practices. They're not only cheap, but compliant. Right now, employers have an incentive to hire illegals over legal immigrants or citizens.
Click to expand...

My point remains; who has the political will to frog march a restaurant owner off to jail for hiring Jose that claimed to be work eligible? Even if they did have the will where would they get the necessary funding (or legal authority) to check millions of employer's current workers? When I see E-verify mentioned it almost always has the huge loophole of applying only to new hires and "large" employers.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
My point remains; who has the political will to frog march a restaurant owner off to jail for hiring Jose that claimed to be work eligible? Even if they did have the will where would they get the necessary funding (or legal authority) to check millions of employer's current workers? When I see E-verify mentioned it almost always has the huge loophole of applying only to new hires and "large" employers.
Click to expand...

No one has to be "frog marched" anywhere. All that has to happen is that fines have to be levied that make hiring illegals uneconomical, that's all. The INS already has the authority to do that.
 
Dittohead not! said:
No one has to be "frog marched" anywhere. All that has to happen is that fines have to be levied that make hiring illegals uneconomical, that's all. The INS already has the authority to do that.
Click to expand...

Yet they do not. Why is that? Could it be that they pay politicians not to allow that to happen?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yet they do not. Why is that? Could it be that they pay politicians not to allow that to happen?
Click to expand...

They being the INS?

or they being the employers of illegals?

Nothing gets done unless the big donors want it done.
 
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...

Yes, as hard as it would be, I could. BUT......I would want a guest worker program in place that would give them a chance to come back legally provided they had a business or a permanent job to come back to. We just can't let our heart rule our heads in these matters--when compassion promotes unintended negative consequences, it isn't really compassion. We do nobody, not natural born citizens, not naturalized citizens, not legalized 'guests' in this country, any favors when we promote conditions that are disadvantageous to just about everybody here legally. What does it profit us to allow ourselves to deteriorate into just another hum drum country without resources or power to help anybody?
 
Dittohead not! said:
They being the INS?

or they being the employers of illegals?

Nothing gets done unless the big donors want it done.
Click to expand...

Not only those employers that directly hire illegals but those that enjoy keeping wages of all US workers, especially their material/inventory suppliers, depressed. Another magical element, in the area of wage suppression, is the "safety net" - it lets the employer pay wages that would otherwise attract only teenagers or folks looking for some extra cash by making the "head of household" get supplemental pay via income redistribution schemes to increase only their pay. It would be illegal for an employer to pay based on a worker's financial need, for any given position, but is deemed just peachy when the gov't does it for them. ;)
 
Hard Truth said:
Do you have any evidence that they obtained their benefits cards legally? My google search did not reveal any benefits for illegal aliens except this reference: "...Instead of spending time devising benefits for illegal aliens, Oregon legislators should do much more to discourage illegal immigration. Benefits to illegal aliens such as in-state tuition and driving privileges legitimize illegal immigration and entice more of it...."* In-state tuition may count as a benefit, but the fact that it does not mention any others indicates that there aren't any benefits such as welfare or EBT cards.

*Oregon can help stop illegal immigration | OregonLive.com
Click to expand...

I'll look, but I can tell you I see it every day when I walk down to the corner store.
 
vesper said:
Isn't it amazing to watch others justify things that by law are wrong? They first must make the argument on the basis that ignores laws. Then they turn it on you when you have respect for the laws and then claim you to either be a racist, bigot, inhumane, on and on and on. These tactics are getting old Either we are a country of laws or we aren't.
Click to expand...

The law does not determine morality, only legality. Many morally acceptable acts are illegal and many immoral acts are legal.
 
jonny5 said:
Because it not their fault. They shouldnt have to bend over to fix the problems the govt is responsible for. Punish the people sneaking in. Punish govt incompetence.
Click to expand...

It is the employer's fault, they are the ones with the power and freedom to choose. Obeying these laws is not bending over to fix problems, it is being a decent person.

It is the employer's moral and legal responsibility to pay the minimum wage and provide safe working conditions. The employer chooses whether to do the right thing or increase profits. Besides exploiting his employees, he is driving down wages for all workers in the region and unfairly hurting his competitors.

A poor immigrant worker is desperate and must work to survive and has little choice in the situation. The employer who breaks the law to exploit desperate workers is an exploitive scumbag and deserves to be prosecuted. A poor person trying to feed his family is not reponsible for the problems created by the exploitive employer.

That conservatives don't understand this is a symptom of their sociopathy and/or brainwashing by big business interests (Stockholder's Syndrome)
 
Last edited:
Hard Truth said:
It is the employer's fault, they are the ones with the powwer and freedom to choose. Obeying these laws is not bending over to fix problems, it is being a decent person.

It is the employer's moral and legal responsibility to pay the minimum wage and provide safe working conditions. The employer is in a position of power and has free choice whether to do the right thing or increase profits. Besides exploiting his employees, he is driving down wages for all workers in the region and unfairly hurting his competitors.

A poor worker immigrant is desperate and must work to survive and has little choice in the situation. The employer who breaks the law to exploit desperate workers is an exploitive scumbag and deserves to be prosecuted. A poor person trying to feed his family is not reponsible for the problems created by the exploitive employer.

That conservatives don't understand this is a symptom of their sociopathy and/or brainwashing by big business interests (Stockholder's Syndrome)
Click to expand...

Most employers go through the motions of screening employees. The problem is fake documents. For $200 you can get a pretty good looking 'green card' and social security card. The employer can't look past that or they will be charged with discrimination. Everybody that eats out at restaurants needs to know that 'Juan' cooking their food in the kitchen is illegal......everybody just looks the other way.....customers and employers alike.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The idea of "self deportation", aka the Romney plan, still does not address what happens to anchor babies. These are US citizens that will surely return to the US but probably not as well educated as if they are permitted to remain. In essence, they still get the shaft whether voluntarily deported or forcibly deported.

Pretending that 5K ICE agents can enforce that no illegal alien employment policy is also a joke - we now use 10 times that many TSA agents just to enforce airport security How, exact;y, would you check for compliance by millions of US employers from large corporations to mom & pop operations and common folks hiring nannies, building contractors and lawn maintenance workers?
Click to expand...

A lot of progress could be made by targeting the larger businesses in the fields that have a recent history of exploiting illegal immigrant workers for enforcement, ie. agriculture, construction and meat packing.
 
clownboy said:
I'll look, but I can tell you I see it every day when I walk down to the corner store.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the benefits are given to their legal children.
 
Hard Truth said:
Perhaps the benefits are given to their legal children.
Click to expand...

Exactly....but the parents eat the food that the food stamps provide as well. And they don't have to pay for the delivery of their children or their medical care.
 
Hangin' Chad said:
Most employers go through the motions of screening employees. The problem is fake documents. For $200 you can get a pretty good looking 'green card' and social security card. The employer can't look past that or they will be charged with discrimination. Everybody that eats out at restaurants needs to know that 'Juan' cooking their food in the kitchen is illegal......everybody just looks the other way.....customers and employers alike.
Click to expand...

An employer that bothers to check for legal residency is also paying minimum wage and has legal working conditions. There are plenty of legal "Juans" working in restaurants and elsewhere, so one shouldn't assume that a brown person working an unskilled job is illegal.

It is the large businesses that mostly hire illegals so they don't have to pay minimum wage and maintain safe and legal working conditions that need to be the priority targets for enforcement. Some of them are enslaving, wounding and killing their workers. (look into contemporary slavery in Florida for horrifying examples)
 
Hard Truth said:
The law does not determine morality, only legality. Many morally acceptable acts are illegal and many immoral acts are legal.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Laws are pretty much always passed on the idea that the offending activity is immoral. Your second sentence is merely our individual judgement after-the-fact, as you're likely to get different opinions from different people regarding said acts.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The OP is about whether you could personally do it. It has nothing to do with public policy.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. If you are the guy with arrest authority and deportation capability whose job it is to burst in on people, then it is your job to enforce public policy.

It's like asking "Let's say that you find yourself a member of one of the units slated for the push in 2003, but don't personally agree with the idea of invading Iraq. Do you follow orders, even though you think it's the wrong policy move?". Your opinion of the policy is irrelevant. It is your function to enforce it.

What makes sense at the macro level can get pretty messy at the individual level and that was my only point in the poll. For example, I can completely empathize with why someone from a country like Honduras would do everything they could to come here in an attempt to find work and have a better life. I also recognize that coming here illegally is probably the only way they would be able to come here because if you are poor, its very hard to immigrate to the United States legally.
Click to expand...

Roughly a million people a year seem to figure it out. It is probably much easier to do illegally. The same is true for many things. For example, if I wanted a nice watch, I could work extra hours, save the money in a bank, build up an account over the course of a year or two, and then spring for a really expensive watch..... or I could find a rich guy wearing one and rob him. The latter is indeed easier.

That said, I don't think we should have an immigration system that makes it easy for poor unskilled labor to immigrate here and I think we should make it as difficult as possible for someone to come here and work here illegally.
Click to expand...

...unless they have children? How does that make sense? Now you're just setting up an incentive structure for the same unskilled low-income labor to flood here and then immediately have children they can't afford, meaning that they will also immediately go on our public assistance programs.

Just because I can empathize with why someone would come here illegally does not mean that I think we can take on the world's poor and desperate. I don't have to demonize illegal immigrants to be against illegal immigration.
Click to expand...

True enough.
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the law is the law, then let's pull over all of those drivers going 80 mph in the 70 zone. There are millions of them, too.
Click to expand...

The law is the law. If you get pulled over for 80 in a 70, all the appeals to "everyone else does it" will not help you. Not even if you have kids.
 
clownboy said:
I thought that when I was typing it, but then I couldn't think of anywhere where it wasn't the case. Can you? I mean other than here in the US. AFAIK everywhere else, citizenship follow parentage.
Click to expand...

I was pretty sure that being born in Canada made you Canadian so I looked in Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but their sources are usually good) and found this... "Canadian nationality is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen and was born or naturalized in Canada, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen. It can also be granted to a permanent resident who has lived in Canada for a period of time."

I think this might be the reason for a lot of dual citizens- say, American parents and a child born in Canada so the kid has dual citizenship.
 
Misterveritis said:
This is a great starting point. Will there be exceptions? Maybe. But dropping a kind on American soil should not be sufficient for citizenship.
Click to expand...

It's not, is it, for the parents. But if being born in America doesn't make you American, what does? Is one American parent enough?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom