Who would pick our fruit? Our lettuce? Milk and produce might double in price.
Note that growers have tried to get born Americans to do it, and they simply wont or cant.
http://www.mcall.com/business/getsmart/mc-fast-facts-how-much-would-deportation-of-illegal-immigrants-cost-the-us-economy-20170222-story.html
I guess the inverse of that question is “Are you super happy that your cheap oranges come from the labour of people being paid below minimum wage under constant threat of the authorities?”
I could support a guest worker program or an expansion of legal immigration.
Tibbetts’s father thanked the Hispanic community for helping in the search for her.
Tibbetts’s cousin slams the racists trying to use her death.
It doesn’t matter, though. Not for the sake of this argument. The only thing you prove by saying, “If that illegal immigrant hadn’t been here, that crime wouldn’t have happened” is that illegal immigrants commit crimes. You know, exactly like every other population in the United States. It doesn’t further your argument. When you say this:
Great! Then what’s the point of this thread? What’s the point of all this waffling? There’s an actual distinction! Use that! But pointing to Mollie Tibbetts’s murder means nothing. Like in any population, there is some portion of illegal immigrants who are murderers. The only way this argument makes sense is if it’s an attempt to tar all illegal immigrants with the same brush, or to imply that they’re considerably more likely to be murderers. Which (and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say I’m not sure if you’re aware of this or not) is absolutely the fucking point! Why draw attention to one specific murder out of tens of thousands that happen around the country each year? Because it burns into people’s mind the mental connection, “illegal immigrant = dangerous criminal”. That’s the whole point. This is demographic demonization 101. Stop propagating it. Stop encouraging it.
Perhaps you’ve lost track of the fact that I wasn’t the one that started this thread.
Would the amount of taxes the employers collect and remit cover the costs of the illegal aliens’ education, police/fire protection, medical care, use of roads, etc.?
The taxes you pay seems to cover your costs.
No, but yours dont cover your cost, either.
I believe what he didn’t lose track of was your 93 posts to this thread defending the OP’s position. And I noticed the above was your response to these great questions:
Your responses (and convenient lack thereof) are convincing a lot of people that this argument against illegal immigration has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with reasons most find unsavory. This motivates folks to not want to associate with the anti-immigration crowd nor their policies, legal or otherwise.
Without meaning to seem like a dick about it…
The OP left ages ago. This is, for all intents and purposes, your thread.
I’m down with this. But how would you propose we handle the inevitable wage depression? It’s already bad, and opening the borders would make it worse for a considerable time.
OK, but why? What will be the positive effects of expending resources to round them up? Because I can definitely name some negative ones.
Of course we do, our legal system. We capture, try, and convict criminals.
Simply stating this repeatedly doesn’t make it true.
Any point provable by an anecdote is a pretty weak point.
No, they’re perfect analogies for this thread. If we ban certain types of weapon used in mass shootings, your logic says that the shootings wouldn’t have happened because that weapon wasn’t available. There’s no difference in the reasoning.
I mean that we don’t (at least currently) have a legal option for removing them (from the country). Someone up-thread mentioned bringing back banishment, but I doubt the soft-on-crime party would actually support that, not to mention the practical difficulties of finding somewhere to deport them to.
I take this to mean that you understood my point about “evidence”, data, and anecdotes. You’re certainly entitled to the opinion that it’s a pretty weak point. When I decided to play along with your particular request for a specially-formatted assertion, I did purposely choose an assertion that I felt would be easy to prove.
Wrong. The weapon isn’t the actor, the shooter is. If we were to only ban “certain types of weapons”, our would-be shooter could simply select another type of weapon. A better analogy would be that if we deported the shooter, he wouldn’t be here to shoot people. Shooting avoided.
Excellent. So we should deport and exile all gun owners from the US. This will reduce shootings almost to zero. I assume this policy has your support?
Like an ANFO bomb? 
The thread has covered a wide range of immigration-related topics. I’ve been involved in many of them. I certainly don’t think it’s accurate to say all 93 posts were “defending the OP’s position.”