• 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
Yes...and as long as those responsible for enforcing our laws allow employers to hire them, that won't change.

Exactly.
What we have is, in reality, a government subsidy for the people who hire illegals in the form of government services that are provided to those illegals.
 
which is why they're in demand to fill unpleasant/difficult/poorly paying jobs like bringing in the harvests or making hotel beds.

Post #274 wrongly appears to include a quote from me.

I believe all people everywhere are entitled to basic human rights unless convicted of a crime with a fair trial (or other process). There have been successful enforcement actions against employers that endangered or enslaved their illegal immigrant employees, as there should be.
 
The judicial system is not robotic. Prosecutors are not robots, neither are judges, or juries. The circumstances surrounding a crime often come into play when determining the penalty for it.

Sure. However, one of the circumstances that does not have impact on whether or not you enforce the law is whether or not the law-breaker has kids. What are you going to say to the brother of the dad in this scenario who is childless - sorry Jose, you should have gamed the system better by having an anchor baby or two, now off you go to Mexico?

The Judicial system isn't perfectly robotic. But it is supposed to be blind. Stripping as much emotionalism out of the process as possible is how we try to make sure that it is just. When emotions and sympathy make justice decisions, you get bias.

In this case, one has to weigh the crime (coming and working here illegally), the costs to society for those individuals having done so, and the costs to the family should they be deported.

Incorrect. We have Rule of Law. Not rule of emotion.

For example, if someone comes here illegally as a drug runner then there are additional costs to society in the actions they took then if they simply came here looking for work, thus you have a much lower odds of being able to stay here if you came here as a drug runner than if you just came here illegally.

:shrug: then we should punish you for drug running in addition.

Moreover, one has to look at the practical implications of doing something. We can certainly strengthen our border security and do a better job of prosecuting those that employ illegal immigrants.

Sure, except that no one is willing to do so because people like you will insist that it's mean.

However, deporting millions of illegal immigrants that have been here for a decade or more and have children and families here now is simply not practical. Its not going to happen. Even if we tried to do so it would take decades to get them all through the courts.

Agreed. We are also not going to be able to catch and prosecute all murders, all low-level identity thefts, all pyramid schemes, all of those who frequent underage prostitutes, or all of those who purchase and sell illegal narcotics. The inability to perfectly enforce the law does not justify the argument that one should not enforce it when you can.

Point being the issue just isn't as black and white as you might would like it to be.

This case isn't black and white. But the issue that you are trying to inject into it has and should have zero bearing in a legal proceeding.
 
Sure. However, one of the circumstances that does not have impact on whether or not you enforce the law is whether or not the law-breaker has kids. What are you going to say to the brother of the dad in this scenario who is childless - sorry Jose, you should have gamed the system better by having an anchor baby or two, now off you go to Mexico?

Depending on the crime prison sentences certainly are delayed in some cases if the individual found guilty has kids they are solely responsible for.

The Judicial system isn't perfectly robotic. But it is supposed to be blind. Stripping as much emotionalism out of the process as possible is how we try to make sure that it is just. When emotions and sympathy make justice decisions, you get bias.

Why do you think at sentencing hearings the defense points out and calls witnesses pointing to the character of an individual, their family, role in the community and so on? The reason is because these are all factors in sentencing depending on the crime and whether that individual is a danger to society or not.

Sure, except that no one is willing to do so because people like you will insist that it's mean.

Not true at all. I am all for it, because stronger borders and strengthening penalties against those that employ illegal immigrants prevents these types of situations from developing in the first place.

Agreed. We are also not going to be able to catch and prosecute all murders, all low-level identity thefts, all pyramid schemes, all of those who frequent underage prostitutes, or all of those who purchase and sell illegal narcotics. The inability to perfectly enforce the law does not justify the argument that one should not enforce it when you can.

Thats a far too simplistic argument. DHS estimates that they can at best deport approximately 400,000 people a year. If you were in the unfortunately position that you could only prosecute 20% of criminals in a given year, you would probably find it makes the most practical sense to prosecute those criminals that constituted the most danger to society and not just randomly go after them in a haphazard manner.

This case isn't black and white. But the issue that you are trying to inject into it has and should have zero bearing in a legal proceeding.

Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
 
What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?

Whatever else it might be it is not a blank check to grant amnesty to 5-30 million people. Discretion should occur one at a time. Catch 'em, charge 'em, then decide.

Obama has changed the nation. Citizens are unimportant. Undocumented Democrats are all important.

The man is a traitor.
 
Illegal immigration is not a felony. No one goes to jail for being in the country illegally, not unless they've done something else too. Should we start jailing people for minor crimes now? We already have more prisoners per capita than anyone else.

No. We deport people for illegally entering our nation. That's the punishment ascribed by law. Just as we jail people for some crimes and fine them for others. You don't get to beg off on the consequences of your decisions simply because you have kids.
 
No. We deport people for illegally entering our nation. That's the punishment ascribed by law. Just as we jail people for some crimes and fine them for others. You don't get to beg off on the consequences of your decisions simply because you have kids.

I mostly agree with that.
I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.

The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.

As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.

So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
Would it be even possible?

Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.

The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.

IMO, that is.

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.
 
Depending on the crime prison sentences certainly are delayed in some cases if the individual found guilty has kids they are solely responsible for.

In your example there are two parents who are (and, this is rather important if that is the precedent you wish to depend upon) still fully capable of taking care of their children.

Why do you think at sentencing hearings the defense points out and calls witnesses pointing to the character of an individual, their family, role in the community and so on? The reason is because these are all factors in sentencing depending on the crime and whether that individual is a danger to society or not.

If the question is whether or not the individual is a danger to society, then those who have experience with the individual are germane to the question. If the question is whether or not the individual entered the country legally, then whether or not the individual has reproduced in the subsequent years is immaterial to the question.

And yes, Justice is supposed to be blind. It's not supposed to be nice, it's not supposed to be sweet it's not supposed to enable us or make us feel warm and fuzzy on Christmas Eve, it is supposed to be just. That's why we call it the Justice System instead of the Doing What We Feel Like At The Moment System.

Not true at all. I am all for it, because stronger borders and strengthening penalties against those that employ illegal immigrants prevents these types of situations from developing in the first place.

Ah. So why are you in favor of the children of illegal immigrants going hungry, by denying jobs to their parents?

Thats a far too simplistic argument. DHS estimates that they can at best deport approximately 400,000 people a year. If you were in the unfortunately position that you could only prosecute 20% of criminals in a given year, you would probably find it makes the most practical sense to prosecute those criminals that constituted the most danger to society and not just randomly go after them in a haphazard manner.

....what percentage of crimes do you think get solved? What percentage of ID thefts do you think end with a conviction? Small-time pyramid schemes generally don't even get pursued.

Again, arguing that we are not able to round up and deport 11 million people (and that is not completely true) is not an argument for not enforcing immigration law.

Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.​


You know what's not in there? Designing a system that doesn't enforce the law if the people who break it have kids.
 
I mostly agree with that.
I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.

The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.

As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.

So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
Would it be even possible?

Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.

The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.

IMO, that is.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
I mostly agree with that.
I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.

The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.

As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.

So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
Would it be even possible?

Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.

The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.

IMO, that is.

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.

Very well said. Unfortunately you are being pragmatic and you are arguing with people that strive to be dogmatic. ;)

I think you have it in a nutshell though when you point out we are dealing with the results of decades of the federal government being remiss when it comes to illegal immigration.
 
Last edited:
Very well said. Unfortunately you are being pragmatic are you are arguing with people that strive to be dogmatic. ;)

Are you kidding me? What is pragmatic about saying that illegal aliens with jobs should be made legal (simply for having jobs?) but those that gave them those jobs should be fined?
 
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.

I see it basically like this:

1. We have a big problem with illegal immigration due to decades of poor border enforcement combined with poor enforcement against employers employing illegal immigrants.

2. Because of that we have families that came here illegally over a decade ago, have become part of their communities, have various family ties here, and in many cases have kids here.

We can deal with the original problem (number 1), while still being humane when dealing with the consequences (number 2) as justice is not simply supposed to be blind its also supposed to be humane. That said, if we strive to be humane in dealing with the consequences without addressing the cause (number 1), we will only make the problem worse.
 
I see it basically like this:

1. We have a big problem with illegal immigration due to decades of poor border enforcement combined with poor enforcement against employers employing illegal immigrants.

2. Because of that we have families that came here illegally over a decade ago, have become part of their communities, have various family ties here, and in many cases have kids here.

We can deal with the original problem (number 1), while still being humane when dealing with the consequences (number 2) as justice is not simply supposed to be blind its also supposed to be humane. That said, if we strive to be humane in dealing with the consequences without addressing the cause (number 1), we will only make the problem worse.

Now your shifting from the OP ("Could you enforce the law even if it involves making emotionally difficult decisions") towards something else entirely ("what should we do in term of immigration reform").

Justice being blind is what helps make it humane. It is when we let it be steered by our emotional desires that it quickly becomes arbitrary and abusive.
 
Are you kidding me? What is pragmatic about saying that illegal aliens with jobs should be made legal (simply for having jobs?) but those that gave them those jobs should be fined?

Who profits more from having such a job, the cheap labor being exploited, or the employer exploiting that cheap labor? People come here illegally largely because they are desperate and because they can find work. If you crack down on the employers exploiting cheap illegal immigrant labor, you remove the main incentive to come here illegally.
 
I see it basically like this:

1. We have a big problem with illegal immigration due to decades of poor border enforcement combined with poor enforcement against employers employing illegal immigrants.

2. Because of that we have families that came here illegally over a decade ago, have become part of their communities, have various family ties here, and in many cases have kids here.

We can deal with the original problem (number 1), while still being humane when dealing with the consequences (number 2). That said, if we strive to be humane in dealing with the consequences without addressing the cause (number 1), we will only make the problem worse.

Nonsense. Why get tough on employers that are the very reason stated to not get tough on illegal aliens? I agree that lax enforcement makes the current immigration laws a joke but you want to blame everyone except the illegal aliens. That makes as little sense as arresting drug "dealers" but making it legal to buy (and possess) drugs. There can be no employers of illegal aliens without illegal aliens looking for work just as there can be no drug "dealers" without drug users looking to buy them.
 
Now your shifting from the OP ("Could you enforce the law even if it involves making emotionally difficult decisions") towards something else entirely ("what should we do in term of immigration reform").

Justice being blind is what helps make it humane. It is when we let it be steered by our emotional desires that it quickly becomes arbitrary and abusive.

The OP is about whether you could personally do it. It has nothing to do with public policy. 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.

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. 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.
 
Who profits more from having such a job, the cheap labor being exploited, or the employer exploiting that cheap labor? People come here illegally largely because they are desperate and because they can find work. If you crack down on the employers exploiting cheap illegal immigrant labor, you remove the main incentive to come here illegally.

I agree with the need to enforce the law against employing illegal aliens but only because they are hiring fugitives. If you make the fugitives legal then WTF are you then fining the employer for? If illegal aliens did not profit more by "being exploited" the why are they coming here in droves? Why are you against sending fugitives that are being exploited back to their native lands?
 
I agree with the need to enforce the law against employing illegal aliens but only because they are hiring fugitives. If you make the fugitives legal then WTF are you then fining the employer for? If illegal aliens did not profit more by "being exploited" the why are they coming here in droves? Why are you against sending fugitives that are being exploited back to their native lands?

1. I am not against deporting illegal immigrants. I only pointed out in the poll how messy it can be at the individual level. For example, I am against people being lazy freeloaders (welfare queens). I don't think public policy should support anyone being a lazy freeloader. However, I would not allow a lazy freeloader to starve to death in front of me because in the end I do have a conscience and would have to be able to still sleep at night and I could not do so if I let someone starve to death in front of me no matter how much of a deadbeat I thought they were.

2. People that come here are exploited as cheap illegal labor, come here despite that because the going rate for exploiting cheap labor here is still more than it is in their native country.
 
1. I am not against deporting illegal immigrants. I only pointed out in the poll how messy it can be at the individual level. For example, I am against people being lazy freeloaders (welfare queens). I don't think public policy should support anyone being a lazy freeloader. However, I would not allow a lazy freeloader to starve to death in front of me because in the end I do have a conscience and would have to be able to still sleep at night and I could not do so if I let someone starve to death in front of me no matter how much of a deadbeat I thought they were.

2. People that come here are exploited as cheap illegal labor, come here despite that because the going rate for exploiting cheap labor here is still more than it is in their native country.

The only way for an illegal alien not to be a freeloader is to get a job (or to be self employed). If you wish not to deport those illegal aliens that work then why would you wish to punish those that hire them? As you said in #2 the illegal alien benefits from that job but is, none the less, breaking our law just as those that employ them are.

Assuming that the employer is committing he greater crime and is jailed then we are faced with what to do with their now unemployed workforce; the US citizens can file for unemployment, until they find other work, but the illegals must then be deported since they are unable to be legally employed ANYWHERE in the US and are not eligible for US public assistance.
 
The only way for an illegal alien not to be a freeloader is to get a job (or to be self employed). If you wish not to deport those illegal aliens that work then why would you wish to punish those that hire them? As you said in #2 the illegal alien benefits from that job but is, none the less, breaking our law just as those that employ them are.

Assuming that the employer is committing he greater crime and is jailed then we are faced with what to do with their now unemployed workforce: The citizens can file for unemployment but the illegals must then be deported since they are unable to be legally employed ANYWHERE in the US and are not eligible for US public assistance.

The freeloader analogy had nothing to do with immigration, I was just making a general point about what can seem like cognitive dissonance (being for something in general while seeing how difficult it can be sometimes in practice).

As to your other point, if you jail the employer that employees illegal labor, the illegal laborer that is now out of work cannot file for unemployment because he has no legal right to it. Thus if they could no longer find work here they would most likely leave and go to another country with better prospects for them, or he or she would just be deported anyway. That said, its much cheaper and easier for the country for them to all leave on their own then it is to go through deportation proceedings for millions of people.
 
Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings.
No, actually they don't.

If an American child living in New York runs away from home where that child is being abused and the child sneaks into someone's house and steals a blanket and some food and then hides somewhere .. and steals some food the next day similarly .. and then again the next day .. and the next .. .. and finally gets caught ..

.. Then the judge upon learning of the child's plight will not throw the book at the child, but will cut the child some slack because the child's crimes are simply not huge and he'll then place the child in protective custody upon seeing the bruises on the child's back.

But ..

.. If an adult trespasses, forges a false identity or steals someone else's identity, violates U.S. employment law, violates U.S. customs law, commits other associated frauds in the process of stealing jobs, classrooms, road-space, living-space, etc. from American citizens .. some of these crimes which are felonies .. including child endangerment for committing such crimes in the presence of a child ..

.. No, there are thousands of both U.S. citizen children and illegal alien children in America separated from their deported parents, mostly because their parents chose not to take them with them during deportation, that attests to the fact that, no, there is no leniency ever rightly shown by a judge regarding deportation.

No judge is going to say "Oh -- you don't want to take your kids with you .. okay, charges dropped and you can stay in America."

They just don't do that here, and they don't because the crimes are huge!

It's not like the little abused child stealing some food for survival.

Illegal aliens are stealing American citizens' jobs, millions of whom were thus impoverished and hundreds of thousands rendered homeless, them and their children.

The crimes are way bigger by the illegal aliens .. so no "leniency" is appropriate.

Illegal aliens are lucky they don't get locked away for years and made to pay tens of thousands of dollars in reparations prior to deporting them.

I suppose you could say that they are getting leniency thereby, not having to be imprisoned or pay huge restitution.

But, no, the fact the illegal aliens might have kids has no bearing on the judge's decision to deport them, nor should it.


What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
Dereliction of duty.

That's what Obamnesty is: a dereliction of duty wolf in prosecutorial discretion sheep's clothing.
 
The freeloader analogy had nothing to do with immigration, I was just making a general point about what can seem like cognitive dissonance (being for something in general while seeing how difficult it can be sometimes in practice).

As to your other point, if you jail the employer that employees illegal labor, the illegal laborer that is now out of work cannot file for unemployment because he has no legal right to it. Thus if they could no longer find work here they would most likely leave and go to another country with better prospects for them, or he or she would just be deported anyway. That said, its much cheaper and easier for the country for them to all leave on their own then it is to go through deportation proceedings for millions of people.

How is it any more "fair" to hold the employer liable after a decade than the illegal alien? Don't employers have kids too? What happens to those US citizen anchor babies when their parents self deport? That sounds just like the Romney plan for "self deportation" which also ignored that little anchor baby detail.
 
Depending on the crime prison sentences certainly are delayed in some cases if the individual found guilty has kids they are solely responsible for.

Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?

I think that prosecutorial discretion is a direct violation of equal protection of the law. If the law said that only folks without kids are to be tried and sentenced it would be unconstitutional as well. When you first state something has bearing on legal procedings and then state no legal procedings will occur that simply defies logic. If something is illegal then it is illegal for all not just those that have done it more recently or that have cute kids. Would you excuse employers that hire illegal aliens because they have done that for decades or happen to have cute kids?
 
Back
Top Bottom