ISTM that one key, unspoken, difference on this issue is that one side thinks that illegal immigrants should be permitted to stay (as the default status) unless there is compelling reason to deport them, whereas the other side thinks that illegal immigrants should be deported (as the default status) unless there is compelling reason to allow them to stay.
So just to divide this up by percentages - what % of illegal immigrants do you think should be permitted to stay? This encompasses all types - those who have committed crimes, those who have not, those who are from Mexico, those are from Europe, both genders, all races, all religions, etc.
I should add that we’ll disregard logistics in this hypothetical question - that if you could instantly deport as many people as you want, that it would be instantly done - and conversely that if you could instantly give everyone amnesty, same as well. Logistics is not an issue.
Anyone who desires to live in the US should be able to. Temporarily, permanently, employed or not, highly skilled or not. It should not be illegal for anyone to move, across national borders or otherwise.
It all depends on their SAT scores.
We don’t have a policy here that allows for economic refugee status. I would stick with the policy of allowing those in we need to fill job vacancies and political refugees. Each country should have the responsibility of putting the needs of their own citizens first. Our ability to help others lies first in our ability to sustain what we have.
But that is an arbitrary matter of definitions. If you live here and work here and shop here and socialize here, day in and day out, in what way are you NOT an American?
“Citizenship” is a piece of paper. It doesn’t change who you are. So if the piece of paper gets handed out based on who lives here – rather than who pays a bunch of money, hires lawyers, files a bunch of paperwork, takes tests and waits the decade or so the naturalization process takes, if they’re lucky enough to qualify for the “privilege” of spending all that money and time in the first place – does that mean we can start treating these people like people now?
Insufficient data. Before I can answer, I nedd to know what percent make a diligent and conscientious effort to to become working productive law-abiding members of society.
In other words, let 100% in provisionally, and withdraw the permits of those who do not prove to meet the criteria.
Uruguay admits applicant with felony records, as long as they have served their time and are not fugitives. As far as I know, they have had no problems to speak of. Australia, for decades, admitted ONLY felons.
How about “None of the options presented?”
Basically, if you’re gainfully employed, and not a criminal in any other way than your immigration status, then IMO you belong here.*
Gainfully employed, in my mind, includes pursuing education, and caring for those as are contributing, or will be contributing, to the economy (elders caring for children, so parents can work, etc.). I figure if you’re helping push the economy forward, are learning skills that will eventually push the economy forward, or enabling others to push the economy forward, then you’re pulling your weight, and belong.
*but for Gods’ Sakes, get your status regularized as soon as is possible!
Or deport them all, and only let the ones back in who meet the criteria.
Regards,
Shodan
They should be made to do a test. All who correctly answer the question “What percentage of illegal immigrants should be permitted to stay?” with something like “putting an arbitrary number on such a complex issue is nonsensical” can stay, the rest get deported.
For those as are causing no problems, and are pulling their weight, why add the bureacratic complexity? While they’re doing the Deportation Shuffle, they’re not working, not contributing. Upgrade-in-place. Cheaper and more efficient for the economy, not to mention easier on the human beings involved (on both sides of the law).
+1
mc
Migration should be treated as an inalienable right for all humans.
One world, no borders, one government, one currency.
Kim Jong Un, supreme leader of us all.
I don’t know which position is being satirized there, but no individual person’s opportunity to improve his or her personal life or condition should be legally constrained by an accident of place of birth.
The “0% deportations, 100% allowed to stay” option is leading the poll at the moment.
So…even drug traffickers, human traffickers, MS-13 gangsters who cross over, get to stay?
Do you guys who espouse this opinion realize the ramifications of it?
What percentage were brought here before they were old enough to understand what was going on? Say, age 12 and under.
If they haven’t committed a crime, they can stay.
Immigration laws are no different from Jim Crow laws. Both are racially based and both were promulgated by the Ku Klux Klan.
That’s fine so long as you don’t have a wellfare state. You can either choose open borders or a wellfare state, you can’t have both.