Exactly. Thanks for proving my point. If there's no steady wage job for them in America or their country of origin, they would still want to migrate to America because it's a better place to live.
No. The opportunity cost of making the rigorous trek knowing no jobs are available is simply not worth it. Often it's just the bread maker that does the migration to find work and money to send back.
Look at countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Rampant crime. High gang activity. Food insecurity. Corruption. Wouldn't you rather live in poverty in America than in poverty in any of those countries? Especially if you have a family?
This open border is not an ideal situation and will only worsen after title 42 but the criticism of biden for not visiting is misplaced. Visits wont change anything but the dems probably missed their window for reform when they held all of congress. Acknowledging that the border is not secure would be a good start for Biden.
So you get to argue based on belief, but you want others to provide data. And you say others are not debating in good faith. Please.
Go please yourself. If you lack the critical thinking to understand that new visa overstays would've dropped significantly in the last 3 years due to the pandemic, then you're either arguing in bad faith or you're unqualified to contribute to this discussion.
Provide data to backup what you are saying, then I will debate you. Until then, you can keep making personal attacks to try to "win" or whatever.
I don't need to provide data for such an obvious statement, and you truly are making yourself look pathetic by arguing against it.
Deport them? They are deported, a lot of them were deported after 911. However, it isn't that simple, the cost is very high, and it also means increasing the size of the federal government. Are you going to be asking "for papers"constantly? Neither side does much about it because at the end of the day it isn't really a big problem. It isn't about propping up the federal deficit (which isn't really a concern), because this attitude has always existed in the USA. Other than California getting pissed at Chinese coming in, the USA has always looked the other way. Saturation point? The USA isn't near it's saturation point. The size of the USA could easily double. In fact there are some experts that are concerned about the population growth in the USA being too low. Also, it isn't a zero sum game either. The lack of housing isn't because of illegal aliens, there is plenty of land to build housing and there is plenty of people to build housing. "We the people"? Most people in the USA live in areas with large population pools, it seems like most Americans like there being a lot of people, and diversity.
Well it depends doesn't it? Are all my family and friends already in Guatemala? It isn't as easy as you think. For example, it is nearly 2,300 miles on foot from the border of Guatemala to the USA border. That assumes that I survive the gangs, the Mexican authorities, the American authorities and the robbers along the way. Am I taking any women or children with me? Actually, when I come to think about it, I might want someone that is so desperate for a better life that they will take those risks to be an American... that is good old fashioned American ambition.
Didn't I say specifically the opposite of that? Pushing immigration enforcement to the local level is 100% congruent to reducing the size of the federal government. It is literally taking a duty away from the federal government and giving it to local government. People aren't really even asking local government to do more, they are asking the police to turn over illegal immigrants to the feds for deportation when they come in contact with the police. The progressives oppose this, and pass laws forbidding local authorities from asking about immigration status or contacting immigration authorities when they make contact with illegal immigrants. What you are saying is the opposite of what is actually happening. In California, there are laws to change what people are convicted of to limit the immigration consequences of their convictions and it is considered ineffective assistance of counsel to fail to properly advise defendants of possible immigration consequences of their plea bargains. There was a case in my court that was recently dismissed because the defendant claimed that he was not informed that his plea would make him ineligible for a specific immigration amnesty program eight years ago (with only the defendant's statement that he was not so informed as evidence). People will adjust to the effects of stronger enforcement.
I get it. You are here to advocate for a specific ideology but I think you are severely underestimating how much basic empathy getsh shoved to the front of the brain the moment many people who claim to be for these extreme measures actually are implemented and they see it happening before them. It's easy to say you just want to forecebly remove millions of people, many of whom have significant ties to families, friends jobs etc here that will cause mass amounts of panic and quite frankly you could see violence. People were violent because they thought there cult leader didn't win an election. A bunch of wealthy land owning white dudes a few hundred years ago started a war because they believed they weren't taxed fairly. Human propensity to start violence often is a much lower threshold than the mass forced removal of millions of humans that have impact on our society from the family level to the economic level. Another tenant of fascism. Simple solutions to complex issues without understanding the devastating consequences on humans You see this with how fascists treat crime, poverty and migration. It never is a sustainable method. As of now, it's definitely more than just progressives that find this course of action you suggest extreme. You are going to have to convince moderates of your position AND when implemented you have to tolerate the empathetic feelings you are witnessing by having your desired actions take place and also have to deal with the fallout of possible sporadic violence.
Local gov'ts don't have the money to do this. It's like asking the local police to the FBI's or CIA's job. They are already stretched thin and they aren't set up to the job correctly. People are asking the local gov't to do work they were never supposed to do. This creates a lot of problems for the local police. If local police start asking citizens for legal proof of citizenship they will get less cooperation from the community. If cap asks me to prove my citizenship because they suspect I am illegal, I'd consider that illegal search and seizure & profiling since the color of my skin shouldn't be enough to detain me. I want to make a key point here. It's not "progressives" only who oppose this - but cities in general. The POLICE DEPARTMENTS are the ones pushing back to the politicians. It's easy to label this oh the left is this and that. But a lot of conservatives don't understand this is the local police forces not wanting to do it because it interferes with their mission of making cities safer.
Yes, people feel empathetic for people. Even people they don't like. People feel sorry for someone who is sent to prison when they hear their story. That doesn't stop it from happening though. Sometimes you are going to do things that hurt people's feelings. What I would really like is a drastic reduction of government spending, followed by an open border for the free movement of people and goods. Until we have that, yes, we should enforce the immigration laws we have. People were violent because a cop restrained a drug fiend until he died. People were violent because their sports team won a championship. So what? People are violent. I don't subscribe to the idea that we should consider how a violent mob might react when deciding what to do. Yes, yes, everyone you don't like is Hitler. I don't expect anything like what I want society to become to actually happen, so I don't really need to convince anyone of anything. I don't have to care about how people feel about it. As I said above, I really don't have to worry about the response of a violent mob. Local governments don't have the money to call ICE when they arrest someone, or even easier, just set up an automated system that passes their information along when they come into contact with law enforcement? I think you overestimate the cost of doing this or underestimate the ability of local government to do stuff. The police actually are supposed to enforce the law and arrest those breaking the law. Most immigrants don't like illegal aliens. I don't think the community's relationship with the police will suffer quite as much as you do. When you are detained, they check your identity with their computer and they have access to all kinds of information that doesn't require asking you anything. Tacking on immigration status check would be trivial. It doesn't require detaining you for your skin color or asking you to prove your citizenship. Tons of local cops hate that they are not allowed to contact immigration when they catch an illegal immigrant committing crimes. They think it is ridiculous to prevent cooperation with federal law enforcement. In fact, the federal government CANNOT force local police to enforce immigration laws, so those that do so are doing it because local policies allow or require it. Even in sanctuary cities that do not allow this cooperation, I would bet dollars to donuts that a good portion (if not a majority) of the officers would prefer enforcement.
You want every single person that comes into contact with the police to be detained while they info is checked with ICE? And yeah, I don't see this as being feasible and no, immigrants don't want the police checking them for their status even if they don't want illegals. I don't think you know what immigrants actually think or feel. And no, police do not want this unless they are some bumble tiny police department that have nothing better to do.
