Two years sounds about right. Now let’s start enforcing it, since we aren’t now.
I didn’t say this or anything resembling this.
You can’t deport them if their country won’t take them back. What do we do with them then?
You make a lot of good points. I agree that the “make Mexico pay for the wall” stuff is not serious and rather silly. It’s red meat for the base and it’s Trump never backing down from anything, no matter how silly it is.
But as far as the level of detail I can’t complain. It’s a more coherent strategy for immigration than anything else I’ve seen. Indeed, leading candidates like Jeb and Rubio have positions on immigration that are so twisted I have no idea what they actually are.
For the last several elections this is about the level of detail we’ve come to expect from a policy proposal from a candidate.
I actually do give Trump credit for coming out with this, even though he’s still a clown.
I hope this forces the other candidates to do something similar.
Do you have any examples of this? What do you suggest we do in this situation?
If we have citizens of another country that are criminals that we caught here then we should absolutely be able to send them back. If a country isn’t accepting them we should use any tools of diplomacy at our disposal to make them change their minds.
What’s the alternative? Become the one country on the planet willing to accept with open arms everyone else’s criminals?
Sometimes problems are complicated, and the simple answers are the worst answers because they do not/cannot cover aspects of the problem that need to be covered.
I realize that definitions vary, but some component of common descent or shared ancestry is part of many definitions of ethnicity, and helps distinguish it from culture. In either case, as you note, most Americans don’t claim to be ethnically American, and I’d further argue that openness to all ethnicities, races, creeds and so forth is part of the American culture, which thus can’t be used as a basis to deny people citizenship.
It says here that prosecutions under that statute outnumbered all other immigration-related charges in US District courts in June 2015, with 1,505 charges filed in that single month.
It’s the logical conclusion to draw from “Why wait for them to commit another crime before we lock them up? They almost certainly will.”
Will criminals cease to “almost certainly” commit crimes after a two-year prison sentence for illegal reentry, or should I chalk it up to inelegant phrasing?
Germany has signed the U.N. convention to reduce statelessness. That means they have to grant German citizenship to anyone born in Germany who would otherwise be stateless.
Anchor babies is easy to solve, just get rid of the allowance to bring in your relatives. Maybe not popular (nor am I necessarily in favor), but certainly within the Constitution.
What exactly can’t be done in Mexico? Citizenship via jus soli?
I have a feeling that this wall may cost a lot more than what is proposed.
As mentioned before, the Berlin Wall is the historic example of a wall and it only caused problems before it ended up being taken down
So what will this new deport all the undocumented workers program be named?
Operation Wetback II?
Some of his techniques to implement making Mexico pay for the wall include abrogating NAFTA and risking a trade war. Mexico is the third (fourth if you count the EU together) largest trading partner the US has. It’s a three way agreement that also includes our largest trading partner. Now Trump and a lot of his supporters aren’t fans of free trade. The transition phase from NAFTA could be tough if we were just backing out. This isn’t just a transition away from NAFTA. It’s a punitive trade war to try and force Mexico to pay for the border fence. Trade war introduces uncertainty on top of the tariff increases. That increases risk to businesses making decisions. That’s not a good way to get them investing to grow their business.
Cost of deporting all the illegal immigrants (minus 20% who choose to leave instead of wait) - estimated at 400-600 billion over 20 years.
Deporting them in the short term costs the economy an estimated 1.5 trillion in real GDP. (cited in the Atlantic story linked above)
Aggressively pursuing changes that in the short to moderate term produce recession or worse isn’t the best way to pursue debt issues. Tax receipts go down, and social spending goes up when the economy is struggling. If Trump chooses to pursue spending cuts and tax increases in that period… better hope the keynsians are completely wrong.
Even if “best” in the long run the approach looks less than optimal. His approach is not gradual or measured. IMO it’s overly simplistic and ignores the second and third order effects of his methods. Sometimes aggressive works. This looks more like aggresivley shoving our collective “junk” into the meat grinder and cranking the handle.
Yeah. Look at people talking about home renovations. You can’t put in a new vanity in your bathroom without going a thousand dollars over budget. And then you want to involve two national governments, plus state govs, and expect this to go smoothly? I don’t buy the “It’ll be cheap!” thing at all.
Wouldn’t it be much simpler and more effective if we just culled them at birth?
I guess that’s why undocumented immigrants can never be prosecuted for crimes they commit. Oh, wait they are. Point debunked.
The most often quoted costs for the Israeli wall are between $1.2 and $2.56 million dollars per mile.
The U.S./Mexican border is 1,933 miles long. That translates to costs between $2,319,600,000 and $4,948,480,000.
Of course. U.S. costs will be much higher since Israeli costs are based on a wall that is nowhere more than ten or twenty miles from the location of construction materials while the U.S. wall will have to go over deserts and mountains hundreds of miles from any materiel sources or roads. And the wall will not stop tunnels or ocean transport in the fairly calm Gulf of Mexico and Pacific.
Yeah. We could do it. It would be dumber than the Iraq war, but we could engage in such a boondoggle. (We could probably get Haliburton to manage the project for us.)
Not really. The phrase was meant to exclude diplomats and such, who are exempted from many laws while in the US- which is why they don’t have to pay parking tickets and such.
Challenging the intent of the 14th is a complete non-starter. Save for Clarence Thomas, not one of the Supremes would give this a moment’s thought.
No, they use both jus soli and jus sanguinis, like us.
ETA: Oops, I misread your post. Nevermind me.
It makes me very sad that the very guy who is saying he wants to make America great *again *wants to eliminate one of the things that made America great.
McKinsey study: