+1
When the Obama administration turned away the swarms of central american migrants fleeing crime infested countries he was following the rule of law as well. So what is the difference? The difference is the degree and focus that conservatives place on deporting the immigrants that are already here, the difference is the higher priority they put on the task.
And why is there that difference? It is NOT based on some differential attitude towards what is legal and what is not, I think the difference in intensity of interest in deporting people is based on the center of mass of attitudes that I mentioned above. It matters that large chunks of conservatives are filled with malice towards the crimes of illegal immigrants having crossed the border to live and work in the country. It matters that many conservatives are sour on birthright citizenship being in the constitution, would be all too happy to have the children born in the US from illegals NOT be considered citizens. It matters that they are a bunch of puss filled haters that consider illegal immigration a crime that shows rotten character like that of a thief.
The kind of moral fools that would look upon a civil rights marcher who refused to sit in the back of a bus with contempt because they broke the law, but it is the fact that THIS specific law breaking is the focus of such outsized contempt that reveals what these people are about.
If we polled the people that wanted to maintain the borders with no contempt for the people who engaged in illegal border crossings, and the ones who wanted to maintain borders that were filled with contempt for those actions (heavily conservative), I submit to you all that the LATTER group would be more hostile to immigration reforms that allowed more immigrants in.
This is NOT just about rule of law for them, there is something more sinister, that is why there is more energy against illegal immigrants on the conservative side. More haters. More resentful people. You all know I am right on this.
What about them is obviously not working?
Reply in large font, if you would, so I can read it through my tears.
First off, the USA has plenty of paths to citizenship and is in fact one of the easiest countries to immigrate to of all the developed countries. I am not for kicking out those already here illegally…that is a problem we have to deal with (the problem being the strain on economy, crime etc. More than two-thirds of those who come here are immediately dependent on food stamps and every possible government services and thus set this country back). But we need to crack down on illegal immigration and come at least close to what most countries do. Could you imagine trying to sneak into North Korea or Russia or France?
Even legal immigration is more slack than ever. We to require skills so that those who choose to come here can at least be equipped to succeed. Today it is more like all you have to do is get in and then rely on government. I guess people just bring their undeveloped country’s mentality with them. I am not referring to refugees, but rather the millions walking over looking for handouts. Regardless, illegal immigration as such will ultimately lead to the US declining into a something less than a developed country with the strain on resources, economy, poverty, crime, civility etc.
Funny thing is for all the complaints about America, this is where everyone wants to be. North America or Europe or Australia or parts of Asia. I can’t name many successful countries anywhere else and we need to see this soon because just on the population issue alone we can’t just relocate all of Latin America to the US.
I don’t know about France or North Korea, but Russia has a huge problem with illegal immigration. Both legal and illegal immigration are very controversial in Russia: Putin himself favours a relatively liberal immigration policy, but two and a half of the three main opposition parties (the Communists, the LDPR and certain elements of the liberal/social democrats like Navalny) are all strenuously criticizing the government’s policy towards legal and illegal immigration.
I lean liberal as well but immigration is also hot button item for me. I’d go for this compromise too except there’d have to be no more bringing in the entire extended family stuff.
The needs of the US in the 2010’s are not the same as they were in the 1890’s so any talk of “my ancestors wouldn’t be allowed in today” is irrelevant. Nations get to set their own immigration policies and they are subject to change. And no, they are under no obligation to be fair.
Other nations are a lot tougher to get in permanently if you don’t bring a skillset or a big bankroll: Australia and Canada to name two. I’m not sure if Israel is off limits too unless you are of the Jewish faith. I don’t see howling at the injustice of those countries. Only the US gets crapped on because once upon a time it was wild west anything goes here and we have the nerve to reign things in.
I’m a liberal and both in my experience and in my understanding of the facts, most immigration helps everyone (aside from bigots, I suppose). In my personal experience, immigrants just work harder and longer than non-immigrants. In my understanding of the facts, immigrants in general pay more into social welfare and safety-net programs than they receive, and start businesses at greater rates than non-immigrants.
I’ve found that the “it’s the rule of law” thinking tends to be very selectively applied by those who hold it. So far, everyone I’ve met who hold this opinion also happens to be someone who smokes marijuana (these conversations happened before it was legalized in California). When I pointed out to them that what they were doing was illegal too, they changed their tune pretty quickly and replied back with some combination of how a) the cops don’t care, b) they did it in private where there was no chance of being caught or it affecting anyone else and c) the law itself was fundamentally unjust and they didn’t respect it.
Of all the people who have ever smoked marijuana ever, many have stopped because they didn’t like the effect it was having on their body/mind, some have stopped because it got too expensive/difficult to source and they were afraid of being caught and approximately zero have ever stopped because of some abstract respect of “the rule of law”.
Although each individual case of deportation is heartbreaking, in aggregate, the risks are approximately the same. There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the US and 240K were deported last year. There’s an estimated 22 million marijuana users in the US and 575K marijuana arrests in the last year.
If no marijuana users give a flying fuck about the fact that it’s illegal, why would you expect any illegal immigrants?
The real problem is that a lot of people are broadly sympathetic to marijuana legalization because they know someone who smokes and they can put a human face on the issue. But most people who oppose illegal immigration don’t know any immigrants personally and treat all illegal immigrants as a giant blob of otherness who they feel they can impose arbitrary standards upon. Most people who actually have friends who are illegal immigrants can see the actual human side of the struggle.
Yes, I think we all agree, nations get to set their own immigration policy.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but there’s a reason why I complain about US immigration policy, but not Australian, or Canadian, or Israeli immigration policy. You know why? Because nations get to set their own immigration policy. And I’m not a citizen of those nations.
Spouse & kids only, Ok, I will agree.
I would smoke marijuana if it was legal. I’d do some other currently illegal “victimless crime” things if they were legal as well. Banning things does tend to reduce the incidence of them. This goes for marijuana and also for things like immigration.
And there’s plenty of people who currently reside outside of the US who would otherwise live here were it legal. My point was, for the people currently illegally living here, they’re affected by practical concerns over the likelihood of being caught and deported but not over any abstract concerns over tarnishing “the rule of law” just like marijuana smokers who only care about getting caught, not about how what they’re doing is illegal.
Wait a minute, Shalmanese. Are you suggesting we smoke illegal immigrants? 
Cite?
New legal immigrants aren’t eligible for most government assistance for five years, with very limited exceptions for refugees (who are a small fraction of legal immigration) and very limited other categories of people, and undocumented immigrants are eligible for emergency medical services and essentially nothing else. Here’s more detail than most people reading this thread will ever bother to digest.
Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal
Cite? All the illegals I worked with on my govt project worked longer and harder than you or i will ever do, and took not a cent of aid. They were too afraid of “la Migra” to file for it.
Well, some of them would take the free rice and beans the church handed out once a week, sure.
All good points, which is why nobody has advocated ending immigration to the United States.
This is a discussion about why we should defend those who are living in the country illegally. That they are immigrants is itself a vindication of their transgression?
Sorry, I realize I’m responding to a months-old comment, but this thread got bumped and this caught my attention.
This is indeed true; however, it’s also true that we have a social safety net and taxpayer-funded services that didn’t exist back then. Consider as well the practical differences between controlling the flow of immigration through ports and controlling immigration along a thousand mile border shared that separates the United States and potentially hundreds of millions of people.
I’m not in the mood to go through what everyone else said right now, so this might be a repeat.
Anyway. This issue is almost always portrayed as “people who hate all immigrants” versus “people who want all illegals to be granted MORE rights than citizens.”
But it has NEVER EVER been that way, it’s just that it’s helpful to the hateful paranoid people to tell the story that way, and it’s COST EFFECTIVE for the bulk of the mainstream media to play along (because following a long established script is cheaper than paying anyone to find out what’s actually true).
"Liberals" have never been united on this issue any more than "conservatives" have been.
Most of the serious opposition to proposed anti-illegal immigration legislation isn’t based on love for illegals. It’s based on dislike of using a sledge hammer approach to the situation that so many of the loudest opponents keep insisting on.
And it’s never been true that all opponents of illegals being hired here again, think that turning the US into a police state where your “papers” get checked every few blocks every day is the only thing to do to fix it.
But between the mass media (left right AND center) and the politicians who are just trying to scam extra votes out of pretending it’s all one way or the other, we get the entirely false narrative that end up being declared to be the problem we face.
The WH is advocating drastically cutting legal immigration, which I think would greatly harm the country.
All I said about immigrants applies to immigrants no matter how they arrived. People who made the effort to be here are, for the most part, hard working and decent, no matter how they got here, in my experience. Kicking out all illegal immigrants would hurt the economy and the country.