• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

That would be a good start.
 
You must admit that you can hardly target businesses for using slaves. You would have to destroy the entire USA. Would you still import goods from Indonesia, Bangladesh, Mexico, that have been using child labor or underpaying workers or breaking laws supposedly upheld in the states proper? I no longer make any real distinction between what goes on in Bangladesh in a garment factory and what happens inside the USA.

So much global industry is run by slaves, you can hardly stop it without running up against the wall of big business, which is a mafia. You cant cross them.

http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/your-tomato-possible-ties-to-slavery/
 
Misterveritis said:
Explain further. Do you mean resident aliens? If they are not Americans then the child is not either.
Click to expand...

Okay. In Canada we have a status called 'landed immigrant'. They haven't taken out citizenship because the haven't been here long enough or they don't want to give up their previous citizenship for whatever reason- up to them. If they have a child in Canada the child is eligible for citizenship, can even have dual citizenship, depending, but it's all a non-issue. Why does it look so huge to you?
 
Grand Mal said:
Okay. In Canada we have a status called 'landed immigrant'. They haven't taken out citizenship because the haven't been here long enough or they don't want to give up their previous citizenship for whatever reason- up to them. If they have a child in Canada the child is eligible for citizenship, can even have dual citizenship, depending, but it's all a non-issue. Why does it look so huge to you?
Click to expand...
By combining anchor babies with chain migration the illegal alien is in charge of our immigration system. By eliminating the anchor baby interpretation and overturning chain migration the American citizens, represented by the Congress, will regain control of immigration.

The nation belongs to its citizens, not to the illegal alien.

Canada is welcome to do whatever it wants.
 
Grand Mal said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think it is pretty clear that one must be born to American parents or to those who are legally in the US. Anchor babies combined with chain migration are subverting the nation. We need to fix this problem.
 
The US justice system is not blind in how punishment and justice is applied. Justice is supposed to be blind, but it is not. And that's why I am highly irritated by the posters simply saying, "the law is law," because I highly doubt those same posters are consistent in application of laws and justice every time there is a crime. Our society does not always throw the book at people and punish the to the fullest possible extent in the US, especially when they are white upper class, and the jury largely relates to them.
 
Misterveritis said:
By combining anchor babies with chain migration the illegal alien is in charge of our immigration system. By eliminating the anchor baby interpretation and overturning chain migration the American citizens, represented by the Congress, will regain control of immigration.
Click to expand...

I don't know what 'chain migration' means but I'm pretty sure that the term 'anchor baby interpretation' means that you want to abandon the principle that an American is someone born in America. Are we saying here that a principle that the founders relied on is no longer valid?

Misterveritis said:
The nation belongs to its citizens, not to the illegal alien.

Canada is welcome to do whatever it wants.
Click to expand...

We thank you for that, but we will do what we need to do, not what we want to do.
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't know what 'chain migration' means but I'm pretty sure that the term 'anchor baby interpretation' means that you want to abandon the principle that an American is someone born in America. Are we saying here that a principle that the founders relied on is no longer valid?
Click to expand...
Chain migration gives preference to the relatives of immigrants. So an illegal alien gets here, drops a kid. The kid is a citizen. All of that kid's relatives advance to the front of the line for admission into the country. That is chain migration. And it begins with the anchor baby.

If you are not born to American parents or to people who are in the country legally then you should not be considered an American citizen. The founders relied upon no such thing.

Here is the clause of the amendment:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.​

One must be born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen.

It is time to fix this.
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't know what 'chain migration' means...
Click to expand...

>" Chain Migration refers to the endless chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate because citizens and lawful permanent residents are allowed to bring in their non-nuclear family members.

Chain Migration is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from about 250,000 per year in the 1950s and 1960s to more than 1 million annually since 1990. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, and school overcrowding that damage Americans’ quality of life.

Chain Migration is about family reunification beyond the nuclear family. Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children. But since then, the law has been changed to enable immigrants to also send for their siblings, parents and adult children. These non-nuclear family members actually get precedence over an immigrant’s nuclear family.

This ill-conceived system also encourages illegal immigration because adult relatives of legal residents are known to overstay their visas (becoming illegal aliens) hoping to become legal immigrants. .

The claim that chain migration is about “family reunification” ignores the fact that each U.S. immigrant “disunites” another family by leaving relatives behind. "<

https://www.numbersusa.com/solutions/end-chain-migration

More sources:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/...-immigration/closer-look-chain-migration.html

Chain Migration's Health Care Drain | Center for Immigration Studies
 
Misterveritis said:
Chain migration gives preference to the relatives of immigrants. So an illegal alien gets here, drops a kid. The kid is a citizen. All of that kid's relatives advance to the front of the line for admission into the country. That is chain migration. And it begins with the anchor baby.

If you are not born to American parents or to people who are in the country legally then you should not be considered an American citizen. The founders relied upon no such thing.

Here is the clause of the amendment:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.​

One must be born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen.

It is time to fix this.
Click to expand...

You want to amend the constitution?
See, this is why I've always been against constitutions. They're nothing but heroic language that becomes an encumberance. Before the Bill of Rights and Freedoms was passed in Canada my rights were well protected by British Common Law, which has evolved for long centuries to reflect the changes in society. Constitution? Bah. Now you have to amend yours if you want to make a simple legal change. You can hardly pass a law without first proving it's constitutionality.
Good luck with your 'anchor baby' cause. Ain't gonna happen, mark my words.
 
Misterveritis said:
Chain migration gives preference to the relatives of immigrants. So an illegal alien gets here, drops a kid. The kid is a citizen. All of that kid's relatives advance to the front of the line for admission into the country. That is chain migration. And it begins with the anchor baby.

If you are not born to American parents or to people who are in the country legally then you should not be considered an American citizen. The founders relied upon no such thing.

Here is the clause of the amendment:
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.​

One must be born here and subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen.

It is time to fix this.
Click to expand...

It's time for activist judges to stop changing the definition of words to further a political agenda.

Intent, intent, intent.

"Natural Law" "Son follows the condition of his father."

>" So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States – that is to say – not only must a child be born but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely within its limits.

There could be no alternative as the United States abandoned the English tradition of “perpetual allegiance” for the principal of expatriation, and thus, children inherit the preexisting allegiance of their father because there is no creation of allegiance through birth alone for foreigners in the United States.

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.” Obviously he did not have the English common law practice in mind since existing allegiance was largely irrelevant...."<

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it won't, that's true.

And two minutes after the cop is out of sight, traffic will be flowing at 80 once again. It's not a very effective way of enforcing the law, is it?
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, it won't, that's true.

And two minutes after the cop is out of sight, traffic will be flowing at 80 once again. It's not a very effective way of enforcing the law, is it?
Click to expand...

:shrug: improvements are coming with the digitization of everything. Soon your car will report you for speeding, or have a digital ID that will identify you to a scanner, the same as they currently have video camera's at stoplights.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I am all for strengthening security at the border and am closer to the mainstream Republican position on illegal immigration than I am the mainstream Democratic position on it, but despite the fact the parents broke the law in coming here and live here illegally, I don't think I could sleep at night knowing I put a family through that by deporting them. That I think is the fundamental problem with dealing with illegal immigration, many times deporting people does indeed break up families and while its easy to take a hardline in the abstract, its hard to do it if it was actually on you.
Click to expand...

When they crossed the border they broke the law. If they robbed a bank then had kids then got caught you still send them to prison even if it breaks up the family. Same thing.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
How are they going to get right with the law once they came here illegally? Its something of a Catch-22 at that point.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, they can apply for work visa status, get a sponsor, and go through the immigration process. While I realize that costs money it is no different than those who follow the legal path, I think if those who come here illegally decide to make amends then there should be a "no harm, no foul" principle at play. If same couple decides to keep ignoring the law then consequences should be on the table.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I generally find you to be a very reasonable poster on here. So why on earth would you compare someone that comes to this country illegally with murderers and rapists?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed the larger point. If we have laws which are applied very selectively then that violates equal protection of the law and becomes a cuteness contest. We estimate that there are now millions of illegal aliens inside of US borders and seem to be discussing which of them are to be declared, by administrative fiat, no longer illegal aliens.

To keep it simple, let's say we have identified 4 illegal aliens, all now age 28, claiming to have come from Mexico into Texas, one came here in 2006 and remains single, one came in 2008 and has 3 children (one US born and two not), one came in 2010 and remains single and the other came in 2012 and has 2 children (one US born and one not). All of them lack proof of continuous employment but insist that they work as often as they can find work, usually construction jobs, and do not wish to get any of their past (or current) employers into any trouble. None of them have any substantial criminal records beyond minor traffic violations, none have educations beyond the eight grade and none speak English fluently. Which, among those 4, should be subject to deportation and which are to be granted permission to stay for 3 years?
 
lifeisshort said:
When they crossed the border they broke the law. If they robbed a bank then had kids then got caught you still send them to prison even if it breaks up the family. Same thing.
Click to expand...

Not really, because you are comparing a misdemeanor with a felony.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct, but the analogy is a bit off. Police make their own decisions all the time which offenses to enforce and which to let slide. You will probably get pulled over for going 81 in a 70, but probably will not for going 74 in a 70... and both are no more or less breaking the law than the other.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people are missing the point of the poll question. Its an ethical question, not a legal one. The premise is not you are a DHS agent, would you do your duty. The premise is, its your personal decision, could you do this. It is "you are king for a day but you have to get your hands dirty" type of question.

I think that public policy should be that they should be deported unless there are some kind of extreme circumstances. However, that doesn't mean that I could do it personally if it was all on me.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Not really, because you are comparing a misdemeanor with a felony.
Click to expand...

No, he is saying that those who break the law bear upon themselves culpability for the consequences of their doing so.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I think a lot of people are missing the point of the poll question. Its an ethical question, not a legal one. The premise is not you are a DHS agent, would you do your duty. The premise is, its your personal decision, could you do this.
Click to expand...

The one is the other. If you have the ability to do this, then it is your duty to do this.

I think that public policy should be that they should be deported unless there are some kind of extreme circumstances. However, that doesn't mean that I could do it personally if it was all on me.
Click to expand...

Ah. Sort of a "I couldn't personally kill people but I still think we should have a military" sort of position. That is not what I have thought you were arguing, you seemed instead to be arguing that if they had kids they shouldn't be deported, not that you personally couldn't pull the trigger on it. Allright - mea culpa on that.



:shrug: I one time had to clean up a kid from pieces of his father that we had blown all over him. The rule was simple - do not accelerate your vehicle towards a checkpoint, ignoring stop signs and flags and warnings, unless you want to get mistaken for a suicide car bomb. For me, at least compared to the decision to gun people down in front of their family, this one is relatively easy, especially since the kids will be able to recover their residency upon the age of majority.
 
Hard Truth said:
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)
Click to expand...

It isnt their fault, or their job. Their job is to produce stuff, not to enforce the law. Thats the job of the govt.
 
Grand Mal said:
You want to amend the constitution?
See, this is why I've always been against constitutions. They're nothing but heroic language that becomes an encumberance. Before the Bill of Rights and Freedoms was passed in Canada my rights were well protected by British Common Law, which has evolved for long centuries to reflect the changes in society. Constitution? Bah. Now you have to amend yours if you want to make a simple legal change. You can hardly pass a law without first proving it's constitutionality.
Good luck with your 'anchor baby' cause. Ain't gonna happen, mark my words.
Click to expand...

Encumbrance is a GOOD thing. Its the whole point.
 
cpwill said:
The one is the other. If you have the ability to do this, then it is your duty to do this.



Ah. Sort of a "I couldn't personally kill people but I still think we should have a military" sort of position.
Click to expand...

Its more than just that. For example, I am against vigilante justice. If someone killed one of my kids, I would want to kill them, and that is precisely why I shouldn't be allowed to. There is a lot cognitive dissonance in life, this is just one of example of it. Personally, I think the vast majority of people that voted yes in this poll could not actually do it if it was their personal decision and they had to get their hands dirty. That doesn't mean at a macro level / public policy level its a bad idea to deport those that are here illegally, it just means at the individual level its much grayer than most people are willing to admit.
 
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 they lived and worked in the US for 15 years they will most probably be given amnesty by ICE anyway (provided they werent convicted of any crime) so its a moot point. A Mexican friend of mine got his green card when they gave him amnesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom