Exactly. I think that most Americans would probably be cool with a very liberal immigration policy if that meant that those who weren’t allowed in were actually kicked out fairly reliably. A lot of the resentment and hard lines come from the fact that not only is the law not enforced, but many people who have immigrated illegally think they are entitled to stay. While the suckers wait in line.
So ironically, by lying to the public about what our immigration policy is on paper, they created mass anger and backlash against what our immigration policy actually is in reality. Funny thing about paper though: it’s the law, which means Trump needs no money, no Congressional approval, no permission from judges, to clamp down hard on illegal immigration. Because his supposedly cruel, racist policy is actually what the law IS.
Well dispensing with the OP’s fiction that the question is about all countries not just the US, my outsiders perspective is that the US public seems to want very tough laws, however it’s ambivalent about it’s enforcement preferring loose or selective application.
“Tough on immigration”, is like “tough on crime” or “zero tolerance”, a lot easier and popular to legislate than implement.
ETA: just saw your above post. Think it’s accurate, except that while most people would be fine (and not just in US here) with reletivley free movement of persons, the loudest voice won’t be, and they have outsized influence.
I think a lot of the problem is illegal immigrants. If they were legal immigrants instead, a lot of problems go away, such as reluctance to report crime, working under the table, identity theft, driving without licenses or insurance, etc. But you can’t just amnesty everyone without better internal enforcement because then you just end up with the same problem as before. You’ve just legalized several million, but you still have several million illegals too, so the same problems remain.
Taking the OPs question as a request for an “ought” I find that I have no clear cut opinion. I think laws should recognise a right to reside in a country somewhere on the line between:
“Entered the country illegally as an adult and have spent the entire time as a violent criminal.”
and
“Had no choice in entering the country (brought in as a minor), has participated in normal society as best they can and has limited legal and/or personal ties to country of purported origin.”
I also think that the tacit approval in many US industries of extensive use of low cost non-legal-resident labor puts a duty on the country to not make abrupt changes disfavoring groups who’ve overall contributed their share to the economy.
What about the Louisiana purchase or when the US bought Alaksa. Wouldn’t that be legitimate in your eyes, given they involved a voluntary exchange and no violence?
I asked this question because there are mostly two schools of thought on illegal immigration:
The first, if perhaps heartless, approach is simple and clear-cut: “If you are an illegal immigrant, you have no right to be here and should be deported.” Sure, there are many hypocrites, such as people who will decry this in public but hire illegal housekeepers or gardening workers in secret, but at least the argument is simple and consistent.
The second group is sort of hemming and hawing - “Well, it’s technically illegal, but we shouldn’t treat it as illegal, and these people technically don’t have a right to be here, but since they’ve resided here a while and also are trying to make a better life and future for themselves, they also sort of do have a right to be here.” A yes but not yes, no but not no logic.
Let’s clarify one point. There’s no such thing as an illegal resident. We have a law against entering the country without proper authorization. But the crime occurs at the time and place where the person crossed the border. Nobody is committing a crime simply by living in the United States.
Let’s use two people as examples, Bob and Joe. Bob stole a car back in 2003. Joe crossed the border illegally in 2003. Neither man has broken any laws since 2003. We should not act like Joe has been on a fifteen year crime spree.
We should treat Joe the way we treat Bob. Yes, they both committed a crime fifteen years ago and they should be appropriately punished. But there should be some acknowledgment for the crime-free years that have passed since the crime occurred. Make them pay a large fine, give them several hundred hours of community service, maybe even put them in jail for thirty days. And then let it go; they were punished for the crime they committed fifteen years and now they can go back to the normal lives they’ve been living since 2003.
This question raises the difference between legal and equitable concerns.
Certainly, at law, in most jurisdictions it doesn’t matter how long a person residing in a country illegally has been there.
The question though is whether it should matter - because after a certain point, it may be more disruptive to society as a whole to have a person residing illegally deported, than to somehow regularize their situation.
Problem is the concern that such a rule would basically encourage law-breaking. A similar concern is raised by limitation periods - that if you ‘get away’ with an offence for so long, you effectively ‘get away’ with it forever.
Limitation periods raise other, different concerns as well (fading memories, disappearing evidence).
The word “illegal” is not synonymous with “criminal.” It is correct to assert that it is not a crime to reside in the US without proper permission. The penalties for such residence are civil in nature (deportation and bar on re-entry), not criminal (jail, etc.). But being in the country without proper permission violates the law (which is why there are civil penalties for it). Thus, it is illegal to reside here without permission.
It is, therefore, correct to say that someone is illegally residing in the country. It is, of course, not completely correct to say that they are an “illegal” resident, since acts are illegal, not people. But trying to assert that they are not doing anything “illegal” by being here without proper permission is an incorrect statement.
IANAL but I find this argument questionable. This is akin to saying that if a squatter breaks into someone’s house and secretly stays in their basement, that he is not committing a crime by staying in their house; the crime was committed when he picked the door locks and entered the house. Or maybe that is in fact legally true, but it seems like a strange argument.
I think there’s less actual disagreement among Americans than it would appear on the surface. Polls show that most of us agree that those with roots in the country should be allowed to stay. Where we disagree is whether they are entitled to it, have somehow “earned” it, that it is a right. I say it’s not a right. It’s a gift, and whether or not to grant it is 100% up to the citizenry of this country and no one else. And of course we get to put whatever conditions we want for eligibility.
The other problem, as I’ve mentioned, is dishonesty from pro-immigration forces in the political world. Their plan has always been to pass a bill that gives amnesty but then not deliver on enforcement and probably not even deliver on the conditions to get amnesty. That has created bad faith, which is why it’s not as easy to pass amnesty in 2018 as it was in 1986. We were lied to and we’re not going to get double crossed again. This time if we do amnesty we solve the illegal immigration problem for good.
There’s also the problem of how many laws you have to break to live here. Driving without a license and using fake documentation to get employment are something most illegals do, except in cases where states issue DLs to illegals. Then there’s reentry after being deported, which actually is a crime.
And then yank the rug out from under them like Trump has done. Because that fucker doesn’t undersand honoring a deal.
Fortunately, the courts have stepped in.
And frankly, anyone who was brought here as a child or infant has a right to stay in the only country and culture they know.
There is a way to eliminate illegal immigration. Eliminate what draws them here.
For many people, that won’t do. What they want is to 1) have a prosperous USA, 2) impoverished neighbors, and 3) these neighbors want to come in to the USA but can’t.
That judge’s decision isn’t going to make a lick of difference. It’s activism at its worst. His reasoning is that it was “capricious and arbitrary”, which doesn’t even come close to passing the smell test since this is actually part of a very deliberate crackdown on illegal immigration that he actually ran on. Furthermore, this is an executive program, and any program an executive can start another can end. There are ways to delay that end if Trump fails to follow proper procedures, but the end of DACA is inevitable. There is no court in the country that will actually proclaim a right to be here applying to non-citizens in contravention of duly passed laws by the Congress.
That’s true only if you accept it as a general principle that children should never be punished by the law for the crimes of their parents. But in fact, we seperate families all the time. That’s what our legal system DOES. It takes dads away from children when they do wrong. And this gets to another issue that a lot of people have with the whole immigration debate: immigrants get special considerations that citizens do not from the pro-amnesty side.
So if you’re going to say that children of illegal immigrants shouldn’t have to suffer leaving their homes and going to a place they don’t know, how about throwing citizens a bone and not evicting people for failiure to pay property tax? Should children be forced from the homes they grew up in because of a mere civil violation?
That talking point is so outdated. Democrats used to say it all the time, until E-verify came out and it actually became possible to end what draws them here. Democrats don’t want to end illegal immigration and a lot of Republicans don’t want to either. The political class is completely at odds with the public on this issue.
When it first started, I thought it was a valuable point to make, if only because we have a tendency to dehumanize these people. I just think it’s time to stop belaboring the point, we get it. And there really isn’t any other good term to use. “Undocumented” is just Orwellian bullshit, they’ve got plenty of documentation. It’s just fake.
More “activism” bullshit. What’s wrong with “So-called” judge?
Is the court system supposed to bow to the White House Master?
How is it outdated? They come for the jobs. Make those who provide the jobs responsible.
Not paying property tax is not the same as sending kids out of the country they grew up in. Same for the foster care system.
The state is a systematic aggressor against private property. Far from being necessary to maintain private property, state violence against person and property is the dominant form of violence in every society.
Hardcore does not mean right wing. Hardcore libertarianism is on a plumb line.
Yes I agree that cultural conservatism has leaked into some libertarianism, but the hardcore position does not strafe toward Hoppe’s evictionism, it continues on the plumb line toward the policy I advocate, I.e. increased illegal immigration. The milquetoast liberal position is not in favor of advocating civil disobedience. Liberals hate activity that is not sanctioned by the state.
my outsiders perspective is that the US public seems to want very tough laws, however it’s ambivalent about it’s enforcement preferring loose or selective application.