Not mass deportation, not “self-deportation”, and not insisting that people who were brought here as children and know of no other place and culture than America be deported.
No, I’m saying that the policies advocated by Steve King, Mitt Romney (during the last campaign, at least), the Tea Party, and other prominent Republicans (except for a few notable exceptions like Bush and perhaps Rubio) are insane.
We’ve done amnesty a whole bunch already – so no, “amnesty” for non-criminal immigrants (e.g. immigrants who have broken no laws except for coming here) is not an insane policy.
So: The border has not been secured against drug smuggling – but, WRT illegal immigrants, there has been some improvement. More importantly, after spending all that money on it, obviously the border is already as secure as it is ever going to get.
So open borders? Maybe I’m just dense, but I’ll need you to explain to me how to have an immigration policy with limits that doesn’t involve a lot of deportations.
Enforce current law.
I wouldn’t call it an insane policy. I also wouldn’t call current law an insane policy, especially since the immigration bill Democrats supported just codifies current law while making an exception for current illegals. Democrats support mass deportation of future illegals.
We give amnesty to those already here (except the criminals). We push reasonable border security. We continue to deport the ones we catch sneaking over the border. That’s basically it.
What do we do about the millions here?
Deportation of future illegals, for the most part, is fine. The craziness is the Republican ideas over what to do with the millions here – especially the ones brought over as children.
Republicans aren’t suggesting deporting everyone. At worst, Republicans just want to continue current policy. Which I’ll note again, was supported by huge bipartisan majorities.
Assume you have a summer cottage, cabin, or a house by the lake. You return in May to open it up for the summer, only to discover a family living in your house. Do you call the Sheriff to evict them, or let them stay, because children?
But these illegal children will take up childish jobs here! They will run about needlessly and inquiring after mischief. Childhood is precious, not to be wasted on those who do not have the correct documentation. We should turn them back to the countries their parents risked their lives to escape. After all, they are not our children, our children all have papers. There is no reason we should care for these children. No reason at all. If they were legal, we would care* then*, of course! But they are not, and it would be against the rules, and what is more important than the rules?
How do you think the “broken” system came to be? See, there’s these things called laws, and laws happen because Congress votes for them, and then they get signed by the President. Congress has passed immigration bills to toughen up enforcement many times since the last major reform in 1986. They voted to build a wall. They voted for biometric entry/exit systems. They voted for employer sanctions.
The new immigration bill also has these things. So I’m curious as to what part of our system you think is broken.
That we have millions of undocumented that aren’t going to leave and are forced into the shadows, despite being mostly decent, hardworking folks who would mostly make great Americans.
That’s a reasonable argument. But then we get to the stickier problem. How do we prevent this from happening in the future?
I’ve long argued that we should have a more liberal immigration system that lets anyone come here who wants to who is willing to work and assimilate. But we also need rule of law. The problem we have in this country is that Americans don’t want a liberal immigration system:
If Americans could choose by referendum, they’d almost certainly choose less immigration, or at best, stick with current statutory levels of immigration, which don’t even come close to meeting demand.
But on the other hand, Americans don’t want the steps necessary to actually enforce those desires. So we have a system where we reward people for successfully breaking the law, while punishing severely those who aren’t quite as smart or skillful. Perhaps it’s an unintentional form of social darwinism. We truly only get the best and brightest immigrants because the dumb ones don’t successfully avoid deportation or capture at the border. But it’s a pretty sad state for a country that needs rule of law.
Immigration isn’t a particularly high concern for most Americans. Further, no major politician is advocating an open-borders type of system. Politically, I think this makes it easy for the Democrats – all they have to do is argue for reasonable and humane treatment of illegal immigrants that are already here, and they have a leg up on the Republicans who can’t seem to get past the views of their base – that illegal immigrants are evil and are the enemy. The Democrats don’t have to do much to portray the Republicans as an anti-Hispanic party – and if Republicans don’t fix themselves on this issue, it will continue to get worse for them.
And as I have said before (and this is from personal experience, not from any polling that I’m aware of), there are lots of white Americans who really, really don’t want to be a part of any group that even has the slightest appearance of a “whites only” club.
As of today, that number is 38% and declining. Although it’s hard to call a party with millions of minority voters supporting it a “whites only” club. That seems like more of an opportunistic attack on the party than one based on fact.
Your argument on immigration seems to reinforce my argument. The Democrats need the issue more than they need a fix. they can argue for the “sane” solution while Republicans argue for the status quo. If democrats actually pass a bill that legally displaces millions of American workers without actually reducing illegal immigration, then they get a double whammy: they lose even more of the white working class vote and Latinos are satisfied. Satisfied voters are not motivated voters.
The polling does not support this. One or two elections is not a trend.
It’s about the perception of the Republican party. It’s lucky for the Democrats that so many prominent Republicans seem intent on reinforcing this perception, even though some other prominent Republicans resist.
Who wants to displace American workers? The undocumented folks are already here, and already working, for the most part. Legalizing their presence won’t change this. As to your “satisfied voters…” argument, that seems remarkably silly – Civil Rights plus the Republicans’ Southern Strategy cemented black voters as a Democratic block for decades… and the right candidate sent black turnout skyward (at least for Presidential elections). Real and positive immigration reform, plus extreme anti-immigrant Republican rhetoric could do the same for Hispanic voters, especially with the right candidate.
They are already working in industries that natives barely show their face in. Give them work permits and their job search is broadened to include the majority of companies that obey the law and who employ a lot of native workers. If you are American and wash dishes, you won’t be doing it after that bill passes.