They aren’t. But that’s not really the issue. I do agree that under normal circumstances, I don’t really think much about immigration one way or the other. If it wasn’t a high salience political issue the last few years I probably wouldn’t talk about it.
And I would assume that you would place illegal immigration in that same category, correct? Maybe issue a citation, but no detention if you are caught crossing the border illegally? Just like speeding or jaywalking?
Further, let’s say that the policy is that airlines don’t allow people to travel to the U.S. without a visa, but someone gets on a plane in Toronto flying to New York without a proper visa. You know we can’t always trust those sneaky Canadians to check things out right.
So the person gets on the plane and lands in NY where it is found that he does not have the proper visa. Do we detain him? Or is it good enough to get in this country that he fooled a teenaged airline agent at the counter in Toronto?
That’s not a very good argument for a couple reasons:
-
Those other crimes are state crimes, not federal crimes. Different jurisdiction and different sets of folks enforcing the laws-- state police vs (federal) border patrol.
-
The problem we are dealing with has very little to do with people arriving on planes.
Is there a reason why you only talk about poor brown people trying to get in, instead of the 100s of thousands of predominantly white people overstaying their visas?
Not sure. I’ll have to think about it.
If this happens more than 5 times a year, then I will try to come up with a solution.
That’s a great argument, but it elides the fundamental issue. Totally open borders is probably as unworkable as completely unrestricted free trade. Since open borders is not happening, we have to enforce what laws we have. If we let a lot of people in, the scale of the problem becomes less, but we’re still going to be deporting people. The argument isn’t over the scale right now, it’s over the very methods themselves.
But I do agree as a general principle that the burden of proof is on those who want to restrict liberty. I’d be very much in favor of letting anyone come here who wants to if they meet certain conditions. This would have the virtue of bringing in a LOT of Chinese, Indians, and Africans, since now they’d be free to come in on tourist visas and stay forever and work. It would diversify our immigrant communities, which are currently too Latino given the Hispanic proportion of the worldwide population of people who would like to come here. Bring in 50 million Chinese, Indians, and Africans, and that changes our demographics nicely.
So?
True. But if we had “open borders”, then people wouldn’t need visas to get on those planes. I’m not for that. You know, to counter the “You all just want open borders!!!” cries that keep arising in threads like these.
I can’t speak for adaher, but one difference between visa over-stayers vs illegal border crossers is that the people who overstay their visas received, at least at some level, some sort of review and approval by our government. They’ve been vetted, at least a little bit. The people who sneak across the border have not.
Border crossers are the issue of the day. I’ve talked about visa overstayers and recognized that this is the primary illegal immigration problem. Which is what biometric entry/exit systems are supposed to deal with.
And I’d ask those who don’t want to deport visa overstayers: why have limits on visas? Why not just let anyone who comes in as a tourist stay, work, do whatever they want?
That too. Although I do consider it a big concern, it’s just not the issue of the day.
So? They’ve overstayed their visa and thus are breaking the law. What does their background BEFORE they broke the law have anything to do with the law they are breaking now?
How do biometric exit systems work if the people just don’t show up to exit the country?
And I would ask those who want to deport poor brown people, why don’t you want to deport visa overstayers with the same zeal?
This seems strange to me. So, if another “issue of the day” arose, you’d no longer care about poor brown people trying to come to this country?
Seems somewhat coincidental, and the type of person the government loves. “Bad things happening? I’ll just distract people with another issue for today” :dubious:
Seems to me that doing away with limits would prompt other countries to limit their citizens’ travel to the US.
The systems are supposed to tell us who has entered, who has left, who is still here. And then you can just look at a database and see who is here illegally. You’ll probably have their last known address and workplace too, if applicable.
Without biometric entry/exit systems, we don’t actually know who got a visa and actually came, or whose visa expired and actually left. And like everything else having to do with internal security, politicians have made grand shows of passing laws requiring these systems, and then refuse to fund them. It’s a scam against the public.
Why would they do that? Why should they care?
Yes, of course. But there doesn’t seem to be such an uproar to track these people down and deport them. I haven’t seen on the news at any time “ICE tracks down 5,000 visa overstayers from Norway and deports them” But sure “ICE tracks down person here since they were a child and deports them!” is all over the news.
Wonder why that is?
Emigration restrictions to prevent brain-drain.
Only totalitarian states would do that, and most of those already restrict travel of those they fear are risks to claim asylum.
I don’t think we’re understanding each other. I understood your post #124 as, essentially, a query about why the emphasis on illegal entrants rather than visa-overstayers. I offered one possible explanation. I agree with you that they’ve broken then law and should be deported. Given the choice between focusing our efforts on one group of people that has had some level of vetting already and another group of people that has not, I’d choose to focus on the latter. Please don’t confuse that with an argument that we should give the former a free pass.