Why? Deportation is a reasonable response when a person violates a country’s immigration laws. That is the standard around the world.
Alternatively, you have an essentially open border, which obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects.
Disruption to peoples’ lives happens when we have administrations who arbitrarily decide not to enforce the immigration law (e.g. the previous administration). It sends mixed signals to potential immigrants, and leads to the outcomes we have today when we decide to resume enforcing our laws.
>Disruption to peoples’ lives happens when we have administrations who arbitrarily decide not to enforce the immigration law (e.g. the previous administration).
"US deportations under Biden surpass Trump's record"
> obviously can lead to unmanageable waves of immigration that strain a country’s housing, healthcare, schools, welfare, and other resources, among other effects.
I don't agree that this is "obvious". Immigrants bring important social and cultural capital. Who do you think is building a lot of the infrastructure in the US? The people putting a strain on the system are actually the aging baby boomer generation.
I have many other reasons for supporting open immigration that are less transactional, but the suggestions that immigrants "strain" our infrastructure is incorrect.
Immigrants do bring important social and cultural capital. But nobody here is arguing in favor of no immigration.
The standard among countries all over the world is to regulate the flow of immigration via immigration law and deportation of people who violate that law.
How could a massive influx of people happening faster than a system can react not strain the system? I saw this firsthand in schools and hospitals where I grew up, and there are numerous examples throughout history from around the world of the disruption it can cause.
The US is not like many countries in that it was formed by illegal immigrants, and not just immigration, literal genocide and land theft of the indigenous people.
That being said, all immigration policy is out of date. The world is connected now and the policies are an anachronism.
> How could a massive influx of people happening faster than a system can react
I don't agree that this is reality. Our system is not under strain from immigration. It's under strain because we spend our money on the military instead of improving infrastructure. It's also under strain due to wealth inequality and corporate friendly policy. None of which has anything to do with immigration.
I’m hoping the world grants everyone citizenship to the state of Israel. Most of us are children of Abraham statistically anyway. And, think of all the benefits and economic development.
Not sure what point you were trying to make, but if it was about inconsistency on the Left, you could’ve picked better examples, like give all Americans citizenship to Greenland, or give all Russians citizenship in Ukraine.
Otherwise you're proving his point, which is that there's no middle ground, only "ICE raids terrorizing people" and "sanctuary cities/states where local governments refuse to do any sort of immigration enforcement and specifically turn a blind eye to immigration status".
Yes, well I don't think we should deport people and I think immigrants improve the US, so I would be in the latter category. He's "waiting to hear of alternatives that don't involve deporting illegal immigrants", and I have one: don't deport anyone.
Even without getting into a debate of whether we should do immigration enforcement at all (a sibling reply goes into it in better detail), there's the practical effect that most people do, and if Democrats don't oblige, people like Trump will get in power instead.
I think the Democrats are also culpable for supporting anti-immigrant policy and sentiment. I absolutely believe that I'm in the minority, as this country has a deep history in racial bias (in fact, it was founded on that).
The question is about deporting illegal immigrants specifically, i.e. people who are in a country in violated of its immigration laws.
I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. If we don’t have immigration laws, we have an open border and with an open border, we can’t regulate the rate at which people enter the country. This rate can easily exceed the amount that the country reasonably accommodate, which negative impact on housing, healthcare, welfare, transportation, civic cohesion, and education systems.
Immigration law is standard around the world, with deportation being the standard response to people who violate that law. The more interesting question here is how you think a modern country will function and continue serving the needs of its citizens when it stops enforcing its immigration laws.
What if a law only has consequences for the people it's intended for?
Let's say you have a requirement that all TVs should be registered, so you can make sure every TV owner has a TV licence. You find an unregistered TV, but the owner has a TV licence. Does it make sense to confiscate the TV? What purpose would that serve?
Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?
>Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?
To ensure that people go through the checkpoint in the first place? For instance, the point of airport security checkpoints is to make sure that no terrorists get on planes, but if there's no penalty for you jumping the fence, why would people even bother going through the checkpoint?
And all of this is ignoring the other purposes of immigration policy, eg. preserving jobs or whatever.
So the is implication is that we should get rid of airport checkpoints, because our actual goal is to catch terrorists? What about speed enforcement cameras? The law might be that you drive 20 in a school zone, but isn't our goal to actually stop dangerous drivers? Actually, why even bother stopping dangerous drivers? The actual thing we care about is stopping accidents. If you're doing street racing at 4am, who's going to get hit?
So what are you trying to imply then? As we seen with airport checkpoints and speeding cameras, it's clearly okay to punish behaviors that aren't directly harmful, so why is it so baffling for you that Americans want enforcement actions against people who entered the country illegally?
For the sake of argument we can assume the only point of the US immigration regime is to stop baddies from coming in, so yes the goal is "stopping serial killers". However, for the reasons I outlined, that doesn't mean we should disband serial killer checkpoints, or refuse to punish people for skipping serial killer checkpoints.
> I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law.
How do you feel about ICE raiding citizens homes without warrants? How about door to door raids?
If ICE cannot even follow the 4th and 5th amendments then they should be jailed themselves.
Administrative warrants aren’t legal court issued warrants, we’re have three branches of government for a reason. As far as the law of the land goes these ICE officers are violating most of the Bill of Rights.
Boss, they already require judicial warrants. They're blatantly violating constitutional rights. Do you think we have constitutional rights or not? Do we have laws or not?
Great, since we are all in agreement, let's see if we can put it clear terms.
Administrative warrants are civil in nature and do not give authority to enter a house or any private space. Using them as such is in violation of the fourth amendment.
