DACA

[bilby]

Yes, but they mostly come from Mexico and a big chunk of the rest is from Central America.

OK, so you are in charge at ICE. You have captured a bunch of undocumented Latinos who only speak Spanish, and you want to deport them.

Where do you send them?

Mexico won't take them, unless you can show that they are Mexicans, and not (for example) Guatemalans. The Mexicans don't want a bunch of undocumented Guatemalans in their country any more than you do. If you take them to the border, the Mexicans won't let them cross. The people themselves won't tell you their nationality, and don't have any paperwork that shows it (undocumented, remember?) So what's your next step?

It all seems ever so simple, as long as you don't actually have to do it, or to think about the details.

"Send them back where they came from" is a strategy that is entirely dependent on being able to prove where they came from. YOU might consider suspicion to be sufficient proof; YOU might think that it is obvious that they are Mexican; But how do you persuade the Mexican authorities of that?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The people themselves won't tell you their nationality, and don't have any paperwork that shows it (undocumented, remember?) So what's your next step?

Why won't they tell you their nationality? Because they are gambling that if they keep quiet about it you will let them stay and there won't be any negative consequences on them. Where would they get that idea? Yes, from widespread and well known weak enforcement of the immigration laws.

 

[bilby]

The people themselves won't tell you their nationality, and don't have any paperwork that shows it (undocumented, remember?) So what's your next step?

Why won't they tell you their nationality? Because they are gambling that if they keep quiet about it you will let them stay and there won't be any negative consequences on them.

Yes.

Where would they get that idea? Yes, from widespread and well known weak enforcement of the immigration laws.

No.

That idea would still be sound if immigration laws were very strongly enforced - which is the whole point of my thought experiment.

I imagined Derec in charge at ICE - Surely you don't think that that implies a continued widespread weak enforcement of the immigration laws?

If an illegal immigrant cannot have his nationality confirmed, where will you send him 'back' to? Why would the authorities in that place accept him? Why should Mexico be any happier taking in people who might well be Guatemalan illegal immigrants, than the US is about taking in people who might well be Mexican illegal immigrants, or Guatemala is about taking in people who might be Mexican illegal immigrants?

I am asking - IF you had the authority to make the enforcement as tough as you like, how would you get any other country to accept your deportees?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes.

Where would they get that idea? Yes, from widespread and well known weak enforcement of the immigration laws.

No.

That idea would still be sound if immigration laws were very strongly enforced - which is the whole point of my thought experiment.

I imagined Derec in charge at ICE - Surely you don't think that that implies a continued widespread weak enforcement of the immigration laws?

If an illegal immigrant cannot have his nationality confirmed, where will you send him 'back' to? Why would the authorities in that place accept him? Why should Mexico be any happier taking in people who might well be Guatemalan illegal immigrants, than the US is about taking in people who might well be Mexican illegal immigrants, or Guatemala is about taking in people who might be Mexican illegal immigrants?

I am asking - IF you had the authority to make the enforcement as tough as you like, how would you get any other country to accept your deportees?

Well to be completely cold hearted about it, you wouldn't have to. You are making an assumption here that we have to convince another government to take them in order to kick them out, when they COULD just be set off to drift in the sea. Maybe some sort of island somewhere that they can live on. Maybe make a TV reality show out of it. Survivor: Deportation Island. Then those who sneak over your borders would have to make a calculation before they do it, as to whether they are better off where they are or better off risking winding up in a possibly worse place. As it is, there seems to be all upside and no downside.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes, but they mostly come from Mexico and a big chunk of the rest is from Central America....

So? In order to deport them to their home country, you need to know their home country, the home country has to let them back in, and you have to pay to transport them back. Are you willing to have your taxes increased for this?

Government already knows who they are in most cases. And to deport them is certainly less expensive than the consequences of letting over 10 million illegals live in the US.

Facts not in evidence - 1st bigoted assumption.

As are many places in the US. Due to, among others, the efforts of MS13, Latin Kings etc.
Yes, there is high crime in Mexico and elsewhere, but the chief reason illegals are coming is money.

Irrelevant to the issue that sending some back expose them to real danger.

The Left is dropping any pretense that they actually want immigration laws enforces. To the Left, if you want immigration laws enforces, you are a "nativistic xenophobic douche".

It is called using reason and compassion. Deporting people who committed no crime by themselves and who are productive people is both stupid, nasty and hard-hearted.

- - - Updated - - -

Not only that, but if they are remaining here then they are continuing to commit that crime, so long as illegal immigration is illegal. So the statute of limitations would only begin to run when they leave.

This is not hard, even for shallow thinkers. Simply allow people who have lived in the US for a specified time to no longer be considered criminals.

 

[bilby]

Yes.

Where would they get that idea? Yes, from widespread and well known weak enforcement of the immigration laws.

No.

That idea would still be sound if immigration laws were very strongly enforced - which is the whole point of my thought experiment.

I imagined Derec in charge at ICE - Surely you don't think that that implies a continued widespread weak enforcement of the immigration laws?

If an illegal immigrant cannot have his nationality confirmed, where will you send him 'back' to? Why would the authorities in that place accept him? Why should Mexico be any happier taking in people who might well be Guatemalan illegal immigrants, than the US is about taking in people who might well be Mexican illegal immigrants, or Guatemala is about taking in people who might be Mexican illegal immigrants?

I am asking - IF you had the authority to make the enforcement as tough as you like, how would you get any other country to accept your deportees?

Well to be completely cold hearted about it, you wouldn't have to. You are making an assumption here that we have to convince another government to take them in order to kick them out, when they COULD just be set off to drift in the sea. Maybe some sort of island somewhere that they can live on. Maybe make a TV reality show out of it. Survivor: Deportation Island. Then those who sneak over your borders would have to make a calculation before they do it, as to whether they are better off where they are or better off risking winding up in a possibly worse place. As it is, there seems to be all upside and no downside.

Well, that would be true if you had complete control of the government and constitution, and were able to disregard the treaty obligations of the US without incurring sanctions (or if you didn't care about sanctions). But the head of ICE would be exceeding his authority if he decided to suspend the US constitution, or to unilaterally ignore international treaty obligations regarding stateless persons.

I think we probably need to assume that the USA will remain a constitutional republic which at least pays lip-service to her international treaty commitments. If the USA has to turn into an international pariah like North Korea, or apartheid era South Africa, in order to deal with the illegal immigration problem, then you might be better off just tolerating the illegal immigrants.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How about enforcing the law but making entry much easier? Why would you want to encourage and reward criminal behaviour?

 

[Patooka]

How about enforcing the law but making entry much easier? Why would you want to encourage and reward criminal behaviour?

There is literally no one who is offering such a resolution publicly. Name one country where a one platform anti-immigration party is advocating less bureaucracy involved in immigration. I can't, I'm not that smart.

 

[TSwizzle]

How about enforcing the law but making entry much easier?

And cheaper. The application fees are extortionate !!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How about enforcing the law but making entry much easier? Why would you want to encourage and reward criminal behaviour?

There is literally no one who is offering such a resolution publicly. Name one country where a one platform anti-immigration party is advocating less bureaucracy involved in immigration. I can't, I'm not that smart.

An anti-immigration party wouldn't. A pro-immigration party should, if they want to be fair to and encouraging of legal immigration.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Here's some new news on this slightly older issue.

Because Trump is using executive action to undo executive action, the California government passed a law declaring California to be a sanctuary state. How it works is that state and local police in California are required to not turn anyone over to ICE.

Here's the new part.

In Orange County, the city of Los Alamitos has just passed a bill nullifying California's law and declaring obedience to federal law.

This is going to play merry hell with the arguments both sides are using.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's some new news on this slightly older issue.

Because Trump is using executive action to undo executive action, the California government passed a law declaring California to be a sanctuary state. How it works is that state and local police in California are required to not turn anyone over to ICE.

Here's the new part.

In Orange County, the city of Los Alamitos has just passed a bill nullifying California's law and declaring obedience to federal law.

This is going to play merry hell with the arguments both sides are using.

How many lawyer heads are going to explode?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

"You can't nullify our nullification!"

This has already been brought to court. It will be interesting to see how many sides of this lose.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Now the court cases have gotten more interesting.

Of course California has filed against Los Alamitos and the federal government has filed against California.

Now the new news. Orange County has joined the US government against California. It is not the US Government vs. California, it is US Government and Orange County vs. California.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Orange County has taken a new tactic in this conflict. Since they aren't allowed to contact ICE and announce when non-citizens are being released, they're posting all the release dates for all criminals publicly to the Orange County Sheriff's website. This is technically public information so they must share it, but now they're making it incredibly easy to find. Critics of this move say that the Sheriff has found a way around the law. The state Attorney General said that the Orange County Sheriff should be arrested over this because this is cooperation with ICE which is against state law.

 

[Elixir]

Orange County has taken a new tactic in this conflict. Since they aren't allowed to contact ICE and announce when non-citizens are being released, they're posting all the release dates for all criminals publicly to the Orange County Sheriff's website. This is technically public information so they must share it, but now they're making it incredibly easy to find. Critics of this move say that the Sheriff has found a way around the law. The state Attorney General said that the Orange County Sheriff should be arrested over this because this is cooperation with ICE which is against state law.

Meh - it's Orange county. Don't know if it's still a thing, but when I lived in SoCal, there was a saying: "Keep California green - stamp out Orange County!" It has long been a hotbed of troglodytic conservatives.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Koch group says Trump should compromise on DACA

Political groups backed by the conservative Koch brothers are criticizing President Donald Trump for declaring that an effort to protect young immigrants from deportation is dead. Freedom Partners is backed by the wealthy Charles and David Koch. Its executive vice president is James Davis, and he says it would be ‘irresponsible and represent a grave injustice’ not to compromise with Democrats on permanently protecting young ‘Dreamer’ immigrants in exchange for $25 billion for border security. Trump has rejected such a deal. Officials with Americans for Prosperity and the LIBRE Initiative released similar statements. LIBRE Initiative President Daniel Garza says Dreamers ‘have contributed to our economy and our communities.’ The Kochs didn’t support Trump’s 2016 presidential bid. They’ve previously criticized his immigration stance but have backed many of his other policies.

[conservoprogressive]Damn those evil Koch brothers![/conservoprogressive]

 

[Elixir]

Koch group says Trump should compromise on DACA

Political groups backed by the conservative Koch brothers are criticizing President Donald Trump for declaring that an effort to protect young immigrants from deportation is dead. Freedom Partners is backed by the wealthy Charles and David Koch. Its executive vice president is James Davis, and he says it would be ‘irresponsible and represent a grave injustice’ not to compromise with Democrats on permanently protecting young ‘Dreamer’ immigrants in exchange for $25 billion for border security. Trump has rejected such a deal. Officials with Americans for Prosperity and the LIBRE Initiative released similar statements. LIBRE Initiative President Daniel Garza says Dreamers ‘have contributed to our economy and our communities.’ The Kochs didn’t support Trump’s 2016 presidential bid. They’ve previously criticized his immigration stance but have backed many of his other policies.

[conservoprogressive]Damn those evil Koch brothers![/conservoprogressive]

Of course they say that - they're the GOOD guys; just ask them!
Of course, no compromise would be necessary if their Infant In Chief hadn't unilaterally discontinued the program. Why should he be rewarded for that with any kind of "compromise"?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course they say that - they're the GOOD guys; just ask them!

Are they right though? Do you agree with the Koch brothers on this?

 

[Elixir]

Of course they say that - they're the GOOD guys; just ask them!

Are they right though? Do you agree with the Koch brothers on this?

No. Compromise with an out of control autocrat is un-warranted. Let him withdraw his cancellation of the DACA program if he wants it to continue.