It may be illegal, but there isn’t strong enforcement. Requiring technology like E-Verify for most businesses would not be difficult to implement and would step up enforcement of already existing laws.
As for the number of people to be deported -
If it’s a few million, I imagine it could work similar to how it’s working now. Under Obama the US has deported over 2.5 million people.
E-Verify would be VERY difficult to implement in a way that really works. Around half of illegal immigrants, e.g., “pass” an e-Verify check, because that system looks only at the documents in their hand. If the documents are forged, or if the documents are legit but don’t belong to the person presenting them, e-Verify doesn’t help. There have been anecdotal reports, e.g., of employers who are only too happy to help their workforce obtain falsified documents so the employees “pass,” and any system that depends upon papers has the potential to increase identity theft and other forms of fraud.
The biggest complaint in that article is that documents could be forged. Yes people could circumvent the control, but if it’s half, I’d say that’s a great start. The article also seems to take issue with the idea of seeking permission to work - proving eligibility to work is already a requirement. We do it with I-9s. E-Verify is simply an electronic way to do the same function, with verification built in.
Yes, it’s been over both terms of Obama. The question posed in the OP was how a few million people could be deported and then made references to being rounded up at gun point, cattle trucks, etc. The point is that we’ve already deported a few million people and none of those draconian measures were required.
It will have to include planes or the countries in between agreeing to let the buses transit through their territory. Last numbers I saw had a touch over half of the illegal immigrants not being from Mexico.
I would guess, however, that if e-Verify becomes mandatory everywhere, the numbers of illegal workers with forged documents is going to skyrocket, with a corresponding decrease in the percentage caught. Right now, a worker without such papers (or with lousy papers) can just find another employer or another location that doesn’t check, so it’s not a huge deal to lack passable papers. If having such papers turns into a big deal, then the market to supply them will expand to match.
My point was that right now we’re deporting maybe 125,000-150,000/year from the interior of the country, the overwhelming majority of whom get caught when they get arrested for something else (drugs, burglary, domestic violence, whatever) and their immigration status comes to light. To quote the LA Times article linked above:
Those draconian measures haven’t been deployed because we aren’t rounding up and deporting large numbers of people who are settled in their communities, with families and jobs and American-born kids and homes they own and ties to churches and neighborhoods. In order to deport eleven million (or even two or three million) illegal immigrants settled here, though, we WILL have to round up and deport people like that. How are you (or Trump) proposing even to identify who qualifies for deportation?
Yes your correct and I should have worded this different, but thinking about it now not sure how to say. This is not a subject I get into often so I do not know the terminology etc. However I just don’t see mass forced deportation starting up. Despite what the anti Trump hysteria people say. Deporting them all is a starting point, and it will work out to something else. What that to be, to be seen.
Just like building the wall and saying Mexico will pay for it. That is a starting point in the discussion. If Trump becomes Prez and the wall is built then The Donald and Mexico will work it out to something less.
Who here has every bought a house, or a car at the 1st price quoted ?
Carmax buyers buy at the first price quoted.
Anyway, the initial questions one needs to ask are “how many” and “for how long”?
If you’re looking at 3 million people over 8 years, well, current measures gets you that. If you’re looking at 6.5 million over 2 years, then, yes, cattle cars and massive tent cities full of dysentery will be needed as you need to process over 8,900 people a day.
A couple of things…
… These people will be disproportionately Catholic, the largest single denomination in the United States. This is not going to sit well with 22% of the US population when people begin to realize this.
… Unlike Germany, or Operation Wetback, this is to occur in a country with over 200,000,000 guns and 5 billion rounds of ammunition in private hands (and 10 billion being manufactured in this country every year), when the targets have access to a worldwide information network that can teach them how to set up counter-insurgency operations… with people in other countries able to egg them on.
Anybody who thinks this is going to go peacefully is fooling themselves.
So what? People will get false paperwork, yes. Should the fact that some people will circumvent or break the law prevent us from enforcing the law? Implementing something like E-Verify will reduce but not nearly eliminate the number of people illegally working in the US. That is a worthwhile goal. We can devise other ways to interdict document forgers.
Ok, but that wasn’t the question posed in the OP. It was about deporting a few million people - which we are currently doing. In other words, to do that, we would continue with the status quo. If we want to change the magnitude or the make up of those deported, then yes, something would have to change.
I’m rather curious how this would work in my state as well. The state of Maine is among a handful of states that does not have a “stop and identify” statute.
So if a cop comes up to me as I’m walking down the streets and says, “I want to check your ID to be sure you’re not here illegally.” I am essentially within my rights, as I understand them, to assert my right to remain silent and have no further conversation with him.
It doesn’t seem like immigration status is something they’d even be able to determine if the person doesn’t cooperate and let them know who he or she is. And if they don’t have probable cause to arrest, I can’t see them being able to compare fingerprints, either.
We’ve deported 2.5 million over the last seven years, and that’s still not enough for Trump or his supporters. So, the methods we’re currently using apparently aren’t enough for the scale of deportation Trump wants to see, which means they’ll have to employ other methods, which presumably will have to be more draconian than the ones we use now, in order to be more effective than the ones we use now.
I’m pretty sure you can be detained if the police have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that an offence has been caused. I guess if you look Mexican and sound Mexican and have no ID, that might be cause to investigate further …
The question is whether e-Verify is a good way of enforcing the law, and I am arguing that e-Verify really doesn’t do much to prevent illegal immigrants from working. Real efforts would be activities such as workplace audits.
Our existing “deportations” are mostly stopping people from coming across; we count it as a “deportation” if the Border Patrol caught 'em three inches across the line. We are not currently doing anything serious to reduce the number of illegal aliens living in America, which is what Mr. Trump argues we should do. In order to reduce the number living here, yes, we have to change the magnitude of the deportations, which also means changing the makeup of who gets deported.
There’s some deep irony that the people most in favor of draconian immigration crackdowns also tend to be ones who think that 2nd Amendment rights and lots of guns will help defend against government tyranny.
I’m not a Trump supporter, but these 2.5 million people hardly affect the number living illegally in the US given they were mostly turned back at the border. Of course people concerned about illegal immigrants “taking our jobs” aren’t satisfied - those Obama sent back aren’t the ones taking any because they never got the chance to.
I’m pretty much in favor of much more liberal immigration policies across the board but at the same time to the extent we have limits or restrictions we should enforce them. I somewhat doubt the 50% inaccuracy rate per the article you cited. Based on this evaluation:
Though, there is also this:
So that may be where the near 50% figure is coming from. Basically - e-verify is not designed to detect fake documents. Not sure what to do about that, but it’s not a knock against e-verify directly.
That is indeed where the 50% figure is coming from. Most of the people going through an e-Verify check are U.S. citizens (since most people working in the U.S. are citizens), and e-Verify is pretty good at verifying that citizens are indeed citizens.
The whole point of using e-Verify, however, is to find the people who are NOT legally authorized to work. When the system can’t detect half of the target group, that’s a knock directly against the efficacy of e-Verify. It’s the logical equivalent of body armor that is really good at blocking dust and falling leaves, but lets half of the bullets through. A verification system that can be thwarted easily by fake documents, or real documents used in fake ways, is a piss-poor verification system.
They will be put in camps first and made to wear a Green M .
No, it’s not. Millions of people who look and sound (and ARE) Mexican live in the U.S. lawfully as permanent residents and U.S. citizens.
Walk onto any construction site around here, and more than likely you will hear only Spanish among the workers. Many of the folks here are likely here illegally, but most probably are not. And it’s damn near impossible to tell the difference.
Congress has the power of the purse, which is actually quite significant. It is probably the biggest factor preventing Obama from being able to close down the detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay and transfer the detainees to the U.S. In order for any executive agency, including Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) as well as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to spend any money, it has to be both authorized and appropriated for by Congress in an annual budget or continuing budget resolution.
If President Trump wanted to round up, detain (which would include housing, feeding, and affording suspected illegal immigrants due process through an immigration court), and deport even one million people or so, it would likely cost tens of billions of dollars. In Fiscal Year 2014, the federal Bureau of Prisons’ budget was $6.9 billion and they only had to manage around 210,000 prisoners in federal prisons. Neither CBP nor ICE have anything near the resources to add this task on to their existing tasks. So, Congress would need to both authorize and appropriate funds for such a massive undertaking. If Congress did not do so, CBP and ICE wouldn’t be able to do it. And, a President Trump could not legally raid the budgets of other executive agencies and simply give them to CBP/ICE, since this kind of fiscal maneuvering is not legally permissible without the consent of Congress.