Illegal Immigration - Amnesty or Deportation?

[Valthazar]

A big issue in the news recently has been the vast numbers of children from Latin America coming into the US illegally due to the horrific conditions they face back home.  Recently, there have been increasing calls to provide them safe haven in the US.  I was curious to know what others felt about this issue.

Personally, I live in a city in the Northeast US which has a high illegal immigrant population.  You may find this hard to believe, but the candidates for president in the Dominican Republic specifically come to my city to campaign, because of the high number of DR citizens still capable of voting in their election.

Should these waves of kids coming to the border be able to stay permanently in the US, or should they be deported?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/us/california-immigrant-transfers/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/19/hundreds-protests-set-this-weekend-against-illegal-immigration-obama-policies/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/15/us/arizona-immigrant-children/

[Neysha]

I'm a big fan of the pathway to citizenship for immigrants already here who are employed and have children or families and other support here.

But for all of these new ones, just deport them. Maybe a hearing to see if they are refugees or some other exceptional hardship, but otherwise, deport them regardless.

[Zakharra]

 I'd have them checked for diseases, get their fingerprints and names, then deport them. It's kind of harsh, but they shouldn't be here illegally. If they want to be a part of the US, then they need to do it legally. Get in the back of the line -after- applying for proper notification.

[Aiden]

I think it is easier said than done when you make it as easy as "deport" them. They are children, most just looking to reconnect with any family they MIGHT have in the US after losing parents.

I am in favor of immigration/amnesty.

The people who come to America are not living a comfortable life back in Mexico. You are not gonna find a doctor or dentist crossing the desert and risking their lives to find a shitty job or get exploited by an American who wants cheap labor or a nanny.

But to be fair, the US can't even handle its own poor and feed its own citizens, why worry about another country.

I do think it is bull shit we are more willing to take in immigrants from overseas because of the turmoil in the middle east, but if its from Mexico, escaping the violence of the cartels...FUCK IT, send them back!

[Zakharra]

I think it is easier said than done when you make it as easy as "deport" them. They are children, most just looking to reconnect with any family they MIGHT have in the US after losing parents.

I am in favor of immigration/amnesty.

The people who come to America are not living a comfortable life back in Mexico. You are not gonna find a doctor or dentist crossing the desert and risking their lives to find a shitty job or get exploited by an American who wants cheap labor or a nanny.

But to be fair, the US can't even handle its own poor and feed its own citizens, why worry about another country.

I do think it is bull shit we are more willing to take in immigrants from overseas because of the turmoil in the middle east, but if its from Mexico, escaping the violence of the cartels...FUCK IT, send them back!

A very large percentage of those illegals aren't Mexican, they are from points further south. Central and South America, not Mexico. Mexico is just the nation they move through to illegally immigrate to the US.  The refugees overseas go through the system to emigrate here. They don't try and sneak across the border

As you can probably tell, I'm not for amnesty. They should be deported. I don't care if they have family in the US, they arrived here illegally. You want to be in the US, go through the system damn it.  I do admit the immigration system needs to be reformed, but there's no excuse for giving amnesty to any of the millions of illegals, adults or children. Our first concern should be for our own people. I think the amnesty is a crock of crap and a PR move by one party to suck up votes. I also think that party won't do a damned thing to fix the border issue because they -want- as many illegals as possible in the US so they can give them amnesty and they will vote Democrat.  If we have to dump the illegals anyways for space to let them live, I'm for dumping them in the homes/property of the legislators and loudmouths that support illegal amnesty. Let them deal with the problem since they seem to care so much. Then lets see what their tone is after they've had 20-50 illegals living in their homes/on their land for a few months. They'd probably change their minds.

[Valthazar]

I think amnesty is an absolute slap in the face for all the immigrants like myself who came here legally.  I came to the US at age 8, and it took us 6 years to go through the process to even set foot here.  We need immigrants – but we need law-abiding, responsible ones.  Why are we rewarding people who break our laws?

We currently have workforce shortages in certain industries in the US.  I have family friends back in India who have been waiting years just to get a visa to come to the US, even though they are software engineers and scientists.  One of my friends even has a job offer here, but he's still waiting for his H-1B visa to clear.  It's unbelievable.  These are the law-abiding immigrants who will actually help our economy grow, but apparently amnesty for the millions who broke our laws takes precedence.

I should also add that crime in my neighborhood has increased at astounding rates over the past several years.  If these people are willing to break our border laws, what other crimes are they capable of committing?  For example, we seem to have a hit-and-run case almost daily here in my city, because the illegal immigrant driver can't just pull over and show ID/insurance.

[consortium11]

I should also add that crime in my neighborhood has increased at astounding rates over the past several years.  If these people are willing to break our border laws, what other crimes are they capable of committing?  For example, we seem to have a hit-and-run case almost daily here in my city, because the illegal immigrant driver can't just pull over and show ID/insurance.

To play Devil's Advocate here, couldn't the bolded be part be used as the basis for an argument for some form of amnesty? On the basis that deporting every undocumented/illegal immigrant (depending on how PC one is feeling) is unlikely to ever be a policy, let alone actually be successful, wouldn't putting undocumented/illegal immigrants in a position where they can get ID and insurance without the risk of being deported would help mitigate the issue?

[ladia2287]

To add my two cents from another country where 'illegal' refugees are a hot topic and have been for many years.

Let me just say this; taking a stance of "JUST DEPORT EVERYONE" without taking consideration of the circumstances which drove a person to attempt to seek asylum/amnesty in another country is, in my opinion, heartless and inhumane.

Here in Australia, there is a lot of propoganda about this issue. The government regularly feeds us a pile of shite about 'queue jumpers'. They neglect to mention that there is no such thing as a queue when it comes to immigration. I am a first-generation Australian; both sides of my family emigrated from Europe and both sides were considered refugees at the time of their arrival.

They were lucky. They had passports. They were able to apply for the necessary visas. Their situation wasn't so bad that they had to flee at a moment's notice. But when they arrived, they were forced to live in intolerable circumstances in a hostel, with conditions only barely better than a prison. All because they used the word 'refugee'.

Just imagine how desperate you would have to be, how intolerable your living conditions, to leave your home in the dead of night and hope you aren't seen, and walk/hitchhike across the country towards the borders with nothing but the clothes on your back and a handful of possessions if you are one of the lucky ones.

Imagine how scary it would be to know that if you are caught, it isn't jail you have to be worried about, but whether or not you will live to tell the tale.

Imagine hiding in the hull of a creaky ship, or hiding in the back of a shipping container, squeezed in like sardines, for days, weeks or even months, without seeing daylight and only having meager amounts of food and water to sustain you.

Imagine the kind of position you would have to be in to consider this to be better than your current circumstances, being fully aware that you might not even survive the journey.

Surely it would be better for each case to be considered on it's own merits. A refugee is someone who is fleeing persecution or intolerable living conditions, regardless of whether or not they had the resources to ask permission to become a refugee first. The UN Refugee Guidelines recommend having an immigration policy that enables genuine refugees to be granted asylum as part of the immigration legislation, regardless of how the person entered the country in which they are seeking it. It recommends implementing a system that allows a timely processing of asylum claims and calls for an efficient and accurate means to investigate each claim and determine whether the person is a genuine refugee.

If it turns out they aren't, by all means deport them, if they are in breach of border control rules. But at the very least take the time to find out before you send them back to a potentially horrific situation.

[consortium11]

I think the difference between refugees/asylum seekers and immigrants should be noted, even if the two topics do tend to bleed into one. There are different rules and regulations (both internationally and domestically) regarding the treatment of refugees and the treatment of immigrants and I think most people also note a moral difference as well.

[Dice]

It's a complex issue and one that gets its fair share of coverage in Australia as well. The whole boat people thing. Granted I am partly indigenous so yea, boat people, you all came here on boats...

As for the comment that immigrants will all vote for the left and thus it's turned into a political issue. First this I have to say is get a little bit of education on political views. It's not the Left papering to get votes, this kind of thing fits into their ideology. The left will always help out those it perceives as needing the help at the expense of those it sees as not needing the help. That's how they work. The right is protectionist in nature and will fight change, seeking to keep things how they are. To say that either side would not play politics on this issue is stupid.

Back in the early 2000's, Howard (our PM at the time) played off the fear that was created and deported many people. Got realected by a landslide. The right can gain just as much.

Anyway, personally, I feel like if you have something to offer, you should be welcomed, but you pay your own way. Food stamps sure, I do not want you to starve, but if you go to a country for a good legitimate reason, then help that country become better for taking you in. If your found to just want to live in a country with better internet or better paying jobs, please don't waste our time. There are people running for their lives. To me, those people need a place in a safe place more than you deserve a place in a country with all your wants.

[consortium11]

First this I have to say is get a little bit of education on political views. It's not the Left papering to get votes, this kind of thing fits into their ideology. The left will always help out those it perceives as needing the help at the expense of those it sees as not needing the help. That's how they work.

That's not entirely true. To quote Andrew Neather, an advisor to Tony Blair and a number of other senior politicians in the then Labour government (the main centre-left party in the UK):

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date

Moreover, from his follow-up clarification comments:

"The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when - hard as it is to imagine now - the booming economy was running up against skills shortages. But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's opposition to multiculturalism."

Nowhere was it about "offering help" to people. It was about 1) economic benefit (bringing in both skilled workers and also low-skilled, low-awareness-of-rights workers... which I believe is one of the issues in the US and a reason many businesses generally seen as right wing in other political areas actually want more immigration) and 2) antagonising the right wing.



Off Topic Point: I think immigration is one of the (many) areas where the traditional left/right distinction breaks down. The right is generally seen as anti-immigrant... but most people would put libertarians on the right and a libertarian should (emphasis on should) be in favour of open borders. Likewise it's not that strange to see national socialist parties (and I don't mean to draw a Godwin inspiring Nazi comparison, it's just the best term for them) who would be seen as being left wing but oppose immigration because of the pressure it puts on the existing working class.

Dice brings up the "opposing/approving change" distinction but I think that fits better into a conservative/anti-conservative distinction rather than right/left... while conservative ideas normally fall on the right hand side of the spectrum, being right wing does not necessarily make on a conservative. To use another common distinction in political theory, the left is seen as being in favour of state intervention, the right against it... in this case that would put the right more pro-immigration as there is little more fundamental when it comes to state interference then deciding who gets to live somewhere.



Back on topic... I think we do need to be clear what we're talking about. People who are running for their lives generally aren't seen or classed as immigrants; they're refugees and aslyum seekers and while they face their own issues (and there's a discussion to be had there) I think it confuses the issue to conflate them and immigrants (economic or otherwise). Are we discussing all situations where someone who doesn't have a right to live in a country tries to live there/claim a right? Or are we limiting things to strictly immigration and immigrants?

[Valthazar]

To play Devil's Advocate here, couldn't the bolded be part be used as the basis for an argument for some form of amnesty? On the basis that deporting every undocumented/illegal immigrant (depending on how PC one is feeling) is unlikely to ever be a policy, let alone actually be successful, wouldn't putting undocumented/illegal immigrants in a position where they can get ID and insurance without the risk of being deported would help mitigate the issue?

The US is already permitting illegal immigrants to have driving licenses in some states.  In Washington DC, they can receive a 'special' driving license, for which the requirements are: "never having been issued nor been eligible for a social security card."  The fact that some Americans wholeheartedly support these types of laws is perplexing to me.  I am not sure how insurance would work, but presumably, they cannot be expected to pay for this, since how can we 'technically' expect them to earn wages in a legal sense? 

If anything, these are merely backdoor strategies to get them so immersed and settled in the US, that a few years from now, there will be no option but to accept amnesty as the only reasonable solution.

If it turns out they aren't, by all means deport them, if they are in breach of border control rules. But at the very least take the time to find out before you send them back to a potentially horrific situation.

Even if some of these undocumented immigrants are fleeing a humanitarian crisis, how does involuntarily accepting all of them into the US or Australia (on the premise of family reunification) improve their home country's situation?  All it is doing is telling more of the poor in those countries to make an illegal entry into ours.

It is also thrusting the responsibility for their welfare from their countries' governments onto ours. 

Are we discussing all situations where someone who doesn't have a right to live in a country tries to live there/claim a right? Or are we limiting things to strictly immigration and immigrants?

I was intending this this discussion to be about the the waves of illegal immigrant children who have been recently coming to the US on claims of escaping humanitarian crises, but any related thoughts on the general issue of immigration are also surely welcome.

As reported by the Washington Post:  "Nearly two-thirds of unaccompanied illegal immigrant children requesting asylum this year have had their initial applications approved, the House Judiciary Committee reported Friday in data that suggests those kids surging across the border who ask to stay will likely be able to gain admission to the U.S."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/18/two-third-illegal-immigrant-children-okd-asylum/

[consortium11]

The US is already permitting illegal immigrants to have driving licenses in some states.  In Washington DC, they can receive a 'special' driving license, for which the requirements are: "never having been issued nor been eligible for a social security card."  The fact that some Americans wholeheartedly support these types of laws is perplexing to me.  I am not sure how insurance would work, but presumably, they cannot be expected to pay for this, since how can we 'technically' expect them to earn wages in a legal sense? 

If anything, these are merely backdoor strategies to get them so immersed and settled in the US, that a few years from now, there will be no option but to accept amnesty as the only reasonable solution.

But wouldn't that at least solve the issue you mentioned in that post? If there's a situation where an illegal immigrant can get ID/insurance legally and they don't then the issue is no longer their immigration status.

Even if some of these undocumented immigrants are fleeing a humanitarian crisis, how does involuntarily accepting all of them into the US or Australia (on the premise of family reunification) improve their home country's situation?  All it is doing is telling more of the poor in those countries to make an illegal entry into ours.

It is also thrusting the responsibility for their welfare from their countries' governments onto ours.

If they're fleeing a humanitarian crisis wouldn't they fall under the refugee/asylum seeker banner and thus outside the remit of this discussion (unless we're intending to include that area as well, which brings up rather different points)?

[Valthazar]

But wouldn't that at least solve the issue you mentioned in that post? If there's a situation where an illegal immigrant can get ID/insurance legally and they don't then the issue is no longer their immigration status.

I am not sure I follow your statement of how receiving this driver's license makes this no longer an issue of their immigration status.  They are still very much illegal immigrants, and receiving this ID does not provide them any "legal" status in the US.  That is why such issues are so confounding - it is granting legal privileges to illegal immigrants, which is ironic to say the least.

I think (or at least, would hope) that all Americans would agree that in an ideal world, all immigration would take place through legal channels.  The question Americans need to ask is whether or not we are "early enough" in the game to be able to tackle the issue of illegal immigration head on through targeted deportation, or pass laws to adapt to an existence where illegal immigration is a fact of American life.

If they're fleeing a humanitarian crisis wouldn't they fall under the refugee/asylum seeker banner and thus outside the remit of this discussion (unless we're intending to include that area as well, which brings up rather different points)?

There are legal avenues for applying for refugee status and asylum.  The US has refugee quotas and a designated application process.  Illegal immigrants bypass this entirely, which is essentially the crux of the issue.  There are programs for unaccompanied refugee minors who essentially land unattended on US soil, but I think we can all agree that this privilege is being abused to no end at this point (given that many parents are intentionally sending their kids on these treks across Mexico for a "better life" in the US).  What message are we sending by turning this token of good will into a regimented immigration avenue?

[Caeli]

From what I understand of the laws allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses -

They are driving without a license regardless.  If they're going to be on the road anyway, the argument is that it would be much more preferable that they are able to learn, study, and test for a driver's licenses like all other drivers who have to be on the road.  Most of the time these people get a kind of rudimentary lesson from their parents, or they just figure it out as they go along - and while some of driving can be figured out with some common sense (one would hope), encouraging these people to go through this process will hopefully make it safer for them and for other drivers.

Whether or not driver training is effective is a whole other story (I see plenty of idiotic and foolish things performed by drivers every day who probably have valid driver's licenses), but even if this is only part of the reasoning behind the law, I would support it.

[Valthazar]

I think it is very disturbing that someone can openly state that he or she is an illegal immigrant at a DMV, and be calmly escorted to be issued a driver's licence - without any sort of effort to hold them responsible for their criminal offense.

Are our immigration policies really this much of a joke?  Why isn't the Department of Homeland Security contacted?

[Avis habilis]

It isn't DMV's job to hold anybody responsible for anything other than meeting the criteria for getting a driver's license.

[Neysha]

No one is making the DMV responsible. They should simply contact law enforcement when confronted with such illegals.

[Euron Greyjoy]

A country without borders isn't a country at all. While my leftist leaning heart calls out to the children smuggled into the country and the parents who want to join them, the kids should be deported and their families barred from entering the country. Its bad enough now finding a good paying job with all the illegals coming in willing to work for ten cents an hour, image if we open the flood gates. Heck just finding a job is hard enough now, so what would happen if millions of people come into the country and cant find a job? They will all sign up for welfare and other government programs, with we the tax payers footing the bill.

[ThePrince]

From what I understand of the laws allowing illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses -

They are driving without a license regardless.  If they're going to be on the road anyway, the argument is that it would be much more preferable that they are able to learn, study, and test for a driver's licenses like all other drivers who have to be on the road.  Most of the time these people get a kind of rudimentary lesson from their parents, or they just figure it out as they go along - and while some of driving can be figured out with some common sense (one would hope), encouraging these people to go through this process will hopefully make it safer for them and for other drivers.

Whether or not driver training is effective is a whole other story (I see plenty of idiotic and foolish things performed by drivers every day who probably have valid driver's licenses), but even if this is only part of the reasoning behind the law, I would support it.

Caeli has the right idea.

Its a solution that was born out of several problems. 1) The Federal government inability or refusal to produce a solution to the immigration problem. 2)Local and State governments have a responsibility to provide for all of it's citizen's regardless of their immigration status. 3) Illegal Immigrants getting jobs, producing income and becoming part of the local economy.

The option is either to arrest these individuals and be burned with the extra cost and manpower of detaining non-violent criminals.(and the federal government not picking up the bill) Or, to bypass the problem by giving them state drivers licenses which promotes safer driving, enables Illegal Immigrants to the services the are entitled to and help pay for and is cheaper than the alternative method.

Besides the help pay for the roads, they should be able to use them.

As for my opinion on the Amnesty or Deportation debate? Fight with me and if I win, you will share in the rewards.

[Zakharra]

 Deportation, after fingerprinting. If they are caught in the US again, a large tattoo is put on their foreheads and they are deported. If they are caught a third time, a bullet to the back of the head and the body cremated. 

If we give them what is essentially amnesty, the flow of illegals will never stop, not to mention it's a slap in the face of every immigrant that has followed the system to gain entry and citizenship. Drivers licenses is a step towards amnesty. It doesn't prevent accidents  (having a drivers license doesn't mean the illegal will get insurance, just that an illegal has a driver's license for some idiotic reason.  It does -nothing- to slow or stop the flow of illegals and only justifies people outside of the US to do it more.

but if amnesty is to happen, then every single one of the illegals is automatically forbidden from voting in ANY election. Not in local, state or federal elections for at least twenty years and after that, not until they pass all the requirements to become a legal citizen, after being purposefully placed in the back of the line. Any legal immigrants,m will always be processed first over the illegals, so it will take years before they can become citizens. If any illegals are caught violating the voting restrictions, they are immediately tattooed on the forehead and deported. Even if they have family, the offender is immediately removed from the country and a notice sent out to the border patrol and police departments.  It's a harsh and punishing form of amnesty, and deliberately so. If they want to be a part of this country so badly, then they can take the long way of becoming a citizen. If they don't want to wait, then they shouldn't have come in in the first place.

And if the children's parents try to follow their kids, tattoo their foreheads and kick them out. No loopholes for families.

[Valthazar]

In the past, you needed to have a valid SS# to pay taxes.  Since 1996, all you need is a taxpayer identification number (ITIN).  Why this change?  Illegal immigrant advocacy groups pushed for the utilization of ITINs by the IRS to permit illegal immigrants to work legally and pay taxes.  It was not intended to be a pathway to citizenship nor a proper form of identification.  The IRS can't even share any information on who files using an ITIN.

What is happening now is that these same advocacy groups are claiming that it is unfair that "undocumented" immigrants are paying taxes, yet don't have legal status (when this was a clause pushed for to cater specifically for the illegals themselves).

As for my opinion on the Amnesty or Deportation debate? Fight with me and if I win, you will share in the rewards.

What do you mean by this statement?  According to your logic, I should tell one of my highly-qualified engineering buddies back in India to stowaway on a cargo ship, and somehow get here to the US.  That way, they can "fight with you" in a libertarian utopia, and compete for wages.

A software engineering job that should pay $100,000, he'll gladly do for $35,000 (and send all of it back home to India).  That's the future you want for the US?

[Euron Greyjoy]

How do you guys feel about possibly manning and arming the border, so if people were to cross they would get shot? Personally I think thats going way too far, but I woulden't be surprised if someone in the Tea Party or a Republican had a similar idea. Other than taxes I'm worried that members of the drug cartels and other other criminals, are coming here illegally and were not able to identify them.

[ThePrince]

How do you guys feel about possibly manning and arming the border, so if people were to cross they would get shot? Personally I think thats going way too far, but I woulden't be surprised if someone in the Tea Party or a Republican had a similar idea. Other than taxes I'm worried that members of the drug cartels and other other criminals, are coming here illegally and were not able to identify them.

This has been brought up along with deportation for around the last 20 years and it is never going to happen. The federal government lacks the ability and/or willpower to do this just as they lack the ability to mass deport illegal immigrants. Not to mention the astronomical cost of funding this, the logistics needed or the human issues because you are killing people on the bases that they are disagreeing with you.

In the past, you needed to have a valid SS# to pay taxes.  Since 1996, all you need is a taxpayer identification number (ITIN).  Why this change?  Illegal immigrant advocacy groups pushed for the utilization of ITINs by the IRS to permit illegal immigrants to work legally and pay taxes.  It was not intended to be a pathway to citizenship nor a proper form of identification.  The IRS can't even share any information on who files using an ITIN.

What is happening now is that these same advocacy groups are claiming that it is unfair that "undocumented" immigrants are paying taxes, yet don't have legal status (when this was a clause pushed for to cater specifically for the illegals themselves).

What do you mean by this statement?  According to your logic, I should tell one of my highly-qualified engineering buddies back in India to stowaway on a cargo ship, and somehow get here to the US.  That way, they can "fight with you" in a libertarian utopia, and compete for wages.

A software engineering job that should pay $100,000, he'll gladly do for $35,000 (and send all of it back home to India).  That's the future you want for the US?

As someone who has worked with Indian immigrants in the software engineering field, I disagree with your statements.

In what part of my post did I instigate a call for a libertarian utopia? The drivers license policy is a very progressive idea.

All I have advocated for is for people coming together and working together for everyone's mutual benefit. As dreamy eyed as it may seem, it's a much more adult response than killing people because they disagree with you, which the last two poster have indicated as a possible solution.

If using the word fight triggered some sort of emotional reaction in you, I apologize. That was not my intent.

[Valthazar]

If using the word fight triggered some sort of emotional reaction in you, I apologize. That was not my intent.

I apologize if I came across that way, but as Zakharra had said, it is truly insulting for those of us like myself who came here the legal way, to see how casually so many Americans are treating the privilege of being American. 

When I was growing up, my dad always told me that this was the Land of Opportunity, where it didn't matter where you were from, so long as you worked hard and played by the rules.  I always took that to heart, and I feel fortunate for all the opportunities I have received.  I just can't comprehend how native-born Americans themselves want to welcome in blatant law-violators.  The state of mind required for someone to illegally cross a border is not representative of a law-abiding, productive citizen.

My remark was mostly in jest about a potential long-term scenario if amnesty is granted.  Almost all the Indian immigrants in Silicon Valley came here the legal way through H-1B visas, and they deserve everything they have worked for.