Privative it!
Implement ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 11 of the Constitution: The Congress shall have Power To … grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal …
And use Uber/Lyft vehicles to transport those scalawags to the nearest border/airport/seaport!
Put Americans back to work till those manufacturing jobs return! 
ETA: Joe Arpaio lost his bid for reelection as Sheriff of Maricopa County, he could run it.
And we have been all along. Diplomatic and economic sanctions are imposed against countries that refuse to co-operate with receiving deportees.
So, you’re a loving and responsible parent. You are going to be deported. Do you leave your children behind, in the land of their birth and citizenship? Or take them with you to whatever Godforsaken hell-hole you fled from?
Sophie’s Choice, American style.
I don’t feel guilty that somebody chose to ignore the rules & regulations when they entered.
Actions, like elections, have consequences.
It’s not a matter of “not following the rules”, it’s a matter of millions of people simply not being allowed to move here, legally. If the rules and regulations say you can’t move, then the rules and regulations must be changed.
It’s like making it illegal to buy food and then complaining about all the “criminals” shopping at grocery stores. People gotta eat, laws or no. If your laws don’t take simple shit like that into account, the laws are wrong, not the people.
What the living fuck? Comments like this make me wish I had voted for Trump. No one has a right or entitlement to move to America, period. A country has sovereign right to control its borders and its immigration process, just because America is rich and Mexico or Guatemala are poor, doesn’t entitle people from those countries residence in a country with greater material wealth, that isn’t just or sensible.
The problem with our immigration system isn’t that we don’t let people in–that’s our right, it’s that we do let people in, off the books, so certain business sectors can employ them at low wage with no benefits, and our focus is on the low income workers as the “bad guys” in this story. If we had serious enforcement and punishment of businesses that are taking advantage of this low income labor pool the prevalence of this behavior would collapse overnight–and lacking the job incentive, far fewer people would move here off the books.
The secret the GOP doesn’t want people to know, is it’s groups like the right-leaning Chamber of Commerce and major Republican party backers who materially benefit from illegal immigrants, and they have no desire to see them either gone or themselves punished.
As answer to op: you’d do it just like we deport 400k people now. Just multiply the costs by quite a bit. Deportation isn’t an automatic process, there’s hearings, the person often must be held in detention while it all goes on and etc. It’s expensive. You will need more money for detention facilities, more money for enforcement officers, more money for immigration courts and government attorneys to move the cases along.
The specter of their home country not taking them isn’t a huge concern, because the vast majority that Trump would be targeting (at least based on his rants) would be Mexican or central american illegal immigrants who have crossed over the Southern border, and we deport to those countries regularly with no issue.
Some Asian countries are much harder to work with, and we do have a lot of illegal Asian immigration (they often just overstay legal visas, as opposed to sneaking in), but let’s be honest–the Minute Men and the alt right are going after Mexicans and central Americans specifically.
If Trump’s to be taken at his word that his first focus is on illegal immigrants who have committed crimes (beyond just illegal entry), the numbers will be a lot less than 2m to start with. After that you’re getting again, into the low wage work force of many vested American business interests, and I suspect Trump will find a reason not to pursue deportations of these people. He’s already changed his tune based on the 60 Minutes interview, calling the bulk of them “great people” and saying his first focus is the criminals. He pegs their number at 2-3m, but it’d be easy for him to walk that back and declare in 12-24 months “hm, looks like we only had a few hundred thousand people in this category, so we aren’t going to devote further resources to this but will allocate it in some other way”, but he’ll say it in a jingoistic way that his supporters will uncritically accept.
Anyone who’s willing to hike across the goddam Sonoran Desert looking for a way to feed their kids is OK by me. And anyone who wants to make their lives tougher for that is walking on the wrong side of me.
It’s nobody’s right to tell people they can’t move anywhere except the seller or landlord of the real estate they’re moving to. Don’t want immigrants on your land? Don’t rent to them. Telling me I can’t rent to them is contrary to every principle a free society depends on.
To the Republican mind, private property is the central right, all the others are mere embellishments, and can be discarded.
So why are they telling me who I can rent/sell my private property to? :smack:
Is this like the government debt/household debt “confusion”? Do Republicans think the US is their personal private property to control via the ballot?
They own, we just rent.
These days, with migration into the U.S. at lower levels than in the past, more and more coyotes are forcing people crossing the Arizona border to carry backpacks of drugs, most of the time bundles of marijuana. Usually there aren’t overt threats involved and many of the migrants are caught and prosecuted for it.
The landlord is the government.
I don’t think anyone cares who you rent your property to. The concern is who is using our public infrastructure. So you have a ranch that buts up on the boarder then let how ever many you want move in but 9nce they are on roads, parks or 9ther publicly owned property then it is the owners of that property who get to decide what to do with it. Since you don’t l, most likely live on one of our boarders the question is how are they going to get to you without utilizing government structures. I don’t think the property rights case is a winner here.
That being said I’m personally for open boarders we just need to adjust our tax code to be consumption based so that way everyone has no choice but to pay into it. We can have low income citizens get refunds annually or monthly to eliminate some of the regressive effects and then add a property tax to capture the top end of the wealth spectrum. Non citizens will pay disproportionately for all of our services.
No, it isn’t. That would make some vague sense if people are trying to move to Yellowstone or Fort Bragg, but not the vacant apartment down the street for rent.
You’re frankly incorrect, what you say goes against upward of a thousand years of accepted norms, to varying degrees (obviously moreso towards the recent end of that timeline) of the rights and privileges of states. Under your claims there’d be nothing at all wrong with 500,000 Americans moving to Iceland, where they would then form a majority, and overthrowing Iceland’s government (by winning all elections) and applying for Iceland to become a state of the U.S.
No, countries have borders to delimit where their laws apply and what their military will defend from invasion. The idea that governments should prevent private individuals from moving across those borders is barely a hundred years old. And it is morally wrong.
If closed borders are so great, you wouldn’t disapprove of making it illegal for Illinoisans to move to California, right? And St. Louisans should make it illegal for people from Kansas City to move there? These are good things our governments should be allowed to do, correct?