Your argument was that we pay more attention and more resources to the Chicago than we do to crime in Beverly Hills. Pointing out how that isn't the case. While yes Chicago is bigger than Beverly HIlls but attention on celebrity murders, and in the US attention leads to resources, is going to be far greater. I will grant you that yes Chicago has a whole devotes more resources on murders but I doubt that is remotely the case if factored for population size. Again though numerically more people are here from visa overstays so if all illegal immigration is the same then why not devote more resources to where the problem is greater? That appears to be your argument. The problem I see though is that immigrants apprehended in the US would still be subject to due process and other Constitutional rights. Such a system might not work with that. I admit though I would have to look into it more how Constitutional rights are handled with the deportation process.
Population size, or more accurately, the number of murders, is the whole point of the analogy. Look back to the start of the argument. There was an infographic about how there are men on horses whipping people at the Southern border, but not at the northern border. The conclusion drawn was that this is due to the race of the people crossing the border. My counter argument is that annual illegal border crossings at the Canadian border are orders of magnitude less than those illegally crossing the southern border. Looking at attention paid to celebrities or on a per capita basis is totally non-responsive to this issue. It is a red herring. You cannot devote border control type resources to visa overstays. Unless you track all people who visit the country lawfully until such time as they become a permanent resident or citizen, leave the country, or their visa expires, you are pretty much limited to when they come to your attention (by some sort of application or arrest, generally). Certainly when that happens they should be subject to the same deportation procedures using the same resources as border crossers. It is just the nature of how freedom from unreasonable search and seizure interacts with lawful visitation that precludes monitoring legal immigrants until their visa expires. Because of this dynamic, it is difficult to compare the resources devoted to each. Border agents, helicopters, infrared imaging, etc. are just not very useful in combatting visa overstays. It is largely the same reason illegal border crossers should not be released into the United States pending their court date. The question would simply be, "What process is due?" If the legal standard is to deport all people who are not lawfully present, then due process would be satisfied by giving requiring the prosecuting attorney to present a prima facie case that the person is not lawfully present and a fair opportunity to provide proof of legal presence in rebuttal. This would certainly include an opportunity to testify, and to present evidence and subpoena documents. None of that should require a lot of time or a large number of court appearances. It certainly should not require an attorney or years of delay. Essentially one would present their birth certificate indicating they are a natural born US citizen, a copy of some sort of naturalization documentation, or a passport with a valid visa. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes. A good equivalent to demonstrate the due process issue is failure to report to jail. In California, many convicted people are provided with a date in the future to report to jail to serve their sentence (sometimes with the opportunity to sign up for some form of alternative sentencing in the meantime, but that is irrelevant to this issue). If the date on which they are supposed to jail comes and goes, the jail notifies the sentencing court and a warrant is issued. The warrant is usually served the next time the person naturally comes into contact with police (in a traffic stop or whatever), and the person is arrested and brought to court. At this time, the person can admit they failed to report to jail (which almost always happens), or they can set their case for a hearing (enforcing their right to due process). At this hearing, the DA presents a certified record from the jail that the accused did not report by the time and date required, and has the court take notice that the accused was ordered to do so. The accused can present whatever witnesses or evidence they choose. Because it is a criminal matter, they have a right to be represented by counsel (which immigration respondents do not). The hearing never takes more than about 90 seconds for the court to look over the papers.
Except again your argument is that we pay more attention to the Southern border than the Canadian because there is more illegal immigration there. Yet you also acknowledge that the bigger numerical problem is visa overstays. You're already pointing out that it's not just a numbers issue regarding where concern and resources are being put. In your response below though you state how visa overstays could be handled quickly and based on that clearly more resources could be put into policing those type of things or adjudicating hearings as one problem with deporting visa overstays is there isn't enough courts and judges to adjudicate these cases. Not having much experience and no direct experience in how the visa overstay deportation process works I can't really give much agreement or opposition to what your idea. What I have heard though is as stated above one problem is the lack of courts and other resources to adjudicate these cases. What it sounds like for your proposal to work would still take more resources than are currently there.
It isn't an apples to apples comparison. Someone on a visa overstay has already done what is required to enter legally, they have already been vetted to some extent, there is no specific country or region of origin sourcing visa overstays, there is no way to have photos or videos of large masses of people on visa overstays, and there is no easy method to round up people on visa overstays. There is a direct apples to apples comparison to people crossing borders from Canada vs. from Mexico. The differences are race, location, and numbers. The original infographic blamed race for the difference in response, I suggest that the difference is the numbers. Bringing up visa overstays is not a valid counter to that argument because the things being decried (men on horses, whipping with reins, fencing, etc.) cannot apply to visa overstays. So yes, when there is an apples to apples comparison, I argue being 1% or less of the volume crossing the border is the biggest difference. That is how it could be handled, but that is not how it is handled. Throwing more money at a broken system that takes years to adjudicate instead of minutes is just flushing it down the toilet. The lack of courts and other resources is based on the amount of time currently spent on each case. I worked on one immigration case for another attorney. I will never touch it again in it's current state. It is preposterous. People who are admittedly illegal immigrants drag out cases for nearly a decade fighting deportation. Tens of thousands of dollars are spent. Of course there are not enough judges and courts to facilitate such a system. There are plenty to facilitate the system I described. There are currently about 1.5 million immigration cases pending and 465 immigration judges. If they handled 14 cases per day each (not exactly a rocket pace, that would be about 30 minutes per case) they would do 70 cases per week per judge, 32,550 per week collectively. That would clear their entire caseload in 46 weeks (roughly a year, considering holidays and vacation). Realistically, under the system I described they should easily be able to do 5 to 10 times that amount. Most cases shouldn't even require a hearing, the person would just admit their status knowing that fighting it is futile (the way over 90% of criminal cases result in conviction by plea). They don't want to streamline the system because they don't want to deport people. Everything that is possible is done to try to allow people to stay. All of immigration is only really a problem though because of the size of government and the amount of tax money spent and thus required. If we had a substantially smaller government, having more people would not increase the resources required. I would much prefer a system of open borders, so long as I am not paying for other people. Free movement of goods and labor allows the market to operate better.
Ok so you are devils advocate guy.. I dig Why can't the overstays only be au pairs from norway? Overstay not brown = all good
So what. They are still illegal if they overstay a visa, and if you think most of them just made a silly mistake and got the date wrong you are nai ve as hell. I've seen a trend with that lawyer, and it always leans right and against the "non caucasion whites". Oh, unless he gets paid to represent them in court. He takes the minority side when he gets paid to.
What are you talking about? I said they should be caught and deported. I didn't mention anything about making a mistake and getting the date wrong, I think you are projecting. Actually I always lean to liberty, justice, and small government.
The state of the Democrats is in good hands with Brandon in charge. WTH is this “ As one computer said, if you’re on the train, and they say Portal Bridge, you know you better make other plans....” Would you Brandon voters in here tell me what the hell is he saying?. Let’s go Brandon.
No, that Brandon would be Amerasian. This Brandon is from the future, but several of his chips are malfunctioning.
Sure you do. You showed that with your opinions of George Floyd and the domestic terrorists at the Capitol. You might fool a jury with your belief in justice but you don't fool me. If you lean towards small government I'm guessing you are against Abbott strong arming businesses into not being able to require vaccinations and masks for customers and employees right? I mean, they should have the right to protect their employees and themselves from harm right? I mean, Texas isn't offering free healthcare to those hospitalized with Covid. Maybe if they were Abbott would care more about actual health than fitting in to the New Radical Republican party by turning a blind eye to Covid and the 71,000 dead under his watch.
