Initial Trump mass deportation plan: 3 million

[fskimospy]

How do you define a short period of time? I don't think Trump said it would take a week, or a month, or even a year. The process will start immediately, but even if it does take a few years I don't think he broke any promises.

I already defined a short period of time as one to two years. Our resources would be woefully inadequate to accomplish it in that time.

And if your only issue with my link is the source, you are not arguing effectively. Ad-hominum is next to the lowest level of debate. If it's a bad article it should be really easy for you to find a better source to contradict it, when all you can do is saw something like 'ew, it's a rightwing news source' it doesn't really do much for your argument.

I see this type of argument a lot here and it's absolutely ridiculous. Asking for credible sources is not an ad-homenium argument, it is a requirement that all parties adhere to a basic standard of evidence, and analyzing the source of your evidence is just as important if not more important than what it says. The idea that I should have to disprove claims from obviously biased sources with a history of misleading statements and evidence is ridiculous and you know it. Provide objective, authoritative sources for your facts and I'd love to debate them with you. Provide links to ultra right wing anti-immigration advocacy groups? No thanks. That would be giving them respect they don't deserve.

Everyone, yourself included, should think hard about where the evidence they accept comes from. If you trust CIS to give you objective evidence about immigration then you're just the sort of easy mark they depend on.

Absolutely correct. I wanted to know the number of immigrants in prison, so I googled it and took the top result. I'm looking for basic facts, there is nothing biased about the search query I use. I repeat: if you have issue with the data, find a better source.

No. If you're going to provide data then provide it from credible sources. This is your obligation, not mine.

 

[buckshot24]

I already defined a short period of time as one to two years. Our resources would be woefully inadequate to accomplish it in that time.



I see this type of argument a lot here and it's absolutely ridiculous. Asking for credible sources is not an ad-homenium argument, it is a requirement that all parties adhere to a basic standard of evidence, and analyzing the source of your evidence is just as important if not more important than what it says. The idea that I should have to disprove claims from obviously biased sources with a history of misleading statements and evidence is ridiculous and you know it. Provide objective, authoritative sources for your facts and I'd love to debate them with you. Provide links to ultra right wing anti-immigration advocacy groups? No thanks. That would be giving them respect they don't deserve.

Everyone, yourself included, should think hard about where the evidence they accept comes from. If you trust CIS to give you objective evidence about immigration then you're just the sort of easy mark they depend on.



No. If you're going to provide data then provide it from credible sources. This is your obligation, not mine.

What is wrong with the content of the link provided?

 

[glenn1]

And that's the issue at the heart of this. We really want their cheap labor but don't fundamentally want to acknowledge that we do because it makes us look/feel/be shitty. Thus the logical thing is to punish the very people that we've taken advantage of for letting us take advantage of them. The bankrupt morality surrounding this issue is vomit inducing.

Why should employers be given a pass? If progressives are going to argue they shouldn't be held to account when it comes to using illegal immigrant workers then it should be across the board and we don't prosecute for violations of EEOC, worker safety, or anything else either. I'd like to see some examples made ranging from that roofing contractor to the professor who uses an illegal housekeeper. Start perp walking some folks involved in the next Nannygate instead of just not allowing them to become Attorney General and you'd see changes in behavior. The person making $200k is who you need to target as much as the big business making $200MM.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Why should employers be given a pass? If progressives are going to argue they shouldn't be held to account when it comes to using illegal immigrant workers then it should be across the board and we don't prosecute for violations of EEOC, worker safety, or anything else either. I'd like to see some examples made ranging from that roofing contractor to the professor who uses an illegal housekeeper. Start perp walking some folks involved in the next Nannygate instead of just not allowing them to become Attorney General and you'd see changes in behavior. The person making $200k is who you need to target as much as the big business making $200MM.

Not saying I think this is a bad idea, I will say have you checked the Citizenship status of roofers coming to work on your house or the guys who comes by to seal the driveway or the baker for your daughters wedding cake?
This could get real complicated and have collateral damage.

 

[1prophet]

.


I'm in the "3 million is a good start" camp.



Now, now...don't try to confuse them with actual facts...

O'Bummer did a decent job getting rid of criminal immigrants. He deported more illegal immigrants than previous presidents, but, once again, he didn't go after the main source of the problem...jobs for them once they get in. Time to start requiring ALL employers to verify the status of ALL employees...and hit the ones who hire illegals with stiff fines and jail time. Start holding the management responsible for the actions of their HR decisions.

Employers are required to verify status, but they purposely gimped the E-verify system making it illegal to verify the eligibility of employment before they are hired,

rather anyone and everyone applying for a job should be E-verified first and the Federal Government should make the decision not the employer if the person can be legally hired,

this way the employer isn't responsible for the work status just like the airline isn't responsible for the no-fly list.

 

[glenn1]

Not saying I think this is a bad idea, I will say have you checked the Citizenship status of roofers coming to work on your house or the guys who comes by to seal the driveway or the baker for your daughters wedding cake?
This could get real complicated and have collateral damage.

For most small jobs like that it's not that hard. A quick bit of Google is sufficient to verify the status of someone like your wedding cake baker or the handyman who seals your driveway. As for larger jobs like getting a new roof, then you can insist on contract language saying that if the contractor is found to knowingly use illegal labor then the contract becomes null and void and any monies paid subject to clawback.

 

[glenn1]

Employers are required to verify status, but they purposely gimped the E-verify system making it illegal to verify the eligibility of employment before they are hired,

rather anyone and everyone applying for a job should be E-verified first and the Federal Government should make the decision not the employer if the person can be legally hired,

this way the employer isn't responsible for the work status just like the airline isn't responsible for the no-fly list.

Just raise the legal standard for employers from "did not willingly hire illegal worker" to a higher burden of proof such as demonstrating "reasonable person" efforts to affirmatively determine legal status. And improve enforcement with random spot checks just like the IRS picks a random x% for audits.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

For most small jobs like that it's not that hard. A quick bit of Google is sufficient to verify the status of someone like your wedding cake baker or the handyman who seals your driveway. As for larger jobs like getting a new roof, then you can insist on contract language saying that if the contractor is found to knowingly use illegal labor then the contract becomes null and void and any monies paid subject to clawback.

I disagree how would google confirm someone's citizenship? Then are you going to trust Google's result's when a Democrat is in office? Are your Parents capable of this google thing, I know mine aren't.
Maybe some kind of State Certification but who audits them and what if its not current? What happens if we put Joe the plumber out of business with all this compliance stuff. How much will it cost?
Point is its more complicated than either of us think.

 

[Darwin333]

.
O'Bummer did a decent job getting rid of criminal immigrants. He deported more illegal immigrants than previous presidents, but, once again, he didn't go after the main source of the problem...jobs for them once they get in. Time to start requiring ALL employers to verify the status of ALL employees...and hit the ones who hire illegals with stiff fines and jail time. Start holding the management responsible for the actions of their HR decisions.

This is the real key. You want to really cut off illegal immigration then you need to go after the employers. Make the consequences so bad that no one would ever consider hiring an illegal alien and they have no incentive to come here.

 

[glenn1]

I disagree how would google confirm someone's citizenship? Then are you going to trust Google's result's when a Democrat is in office? Are your Parents capable of this google thing, I know mine aren't.
Maybe some kind of State Certification but who audits them and what if its not current? What happens if we put Joe the plumber out of business with all this compliance stuff. How much will it cost?
Point is its more complicated than either of us think.

Sure, why not? Quick google of the person who did my wedding cake reveals her easily verifiable basic bio information. The handyman who did jobs like a small bathroom renovation, etc. was recommended to me by a friend he's known since they were born and confirmed status that way. I've personally sponsored someone for getting their J-1 visa before. Et cetera.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Sure, why not? Quick google of the person who did my wedding cake reveals her easily verifiable basic bio information. The handyman who did jobs like a small bathroom renovation, etc. was recommended to me by a friend he's known since they were born and confirmed status that way. I've personally sponsored someone for getting their J-1 visa before. Et cetera.

Mmmm I highly doubt you've tracked down all these references all the time and I highly doubt its even possible the majority of the time. Maybe I'm wrong and this is a City vs Country thing but barring someone I directly know, it would be unrealistic to think I'm going to track down a bunch of references from people he/she know or worked for to get a job done around the house. I'll google a business and get some linkedin stuff and a facebook thing plus some various reviews but no proof of citizenship.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

.I think all states should have a designation on the the state issued drivers licences and ID that show whether the person is a US citizen or a immigrant that's eligible to work.

 

[Double Trouble]

The right answer is to deport ALL illegal immigrants, but since that's not realistically doable anytime soon we should start by focusing on deporting all illegal aliens that have committed additional crimes and closing off the border so no additional illegal immigrants come in. Once that's done we can start looking at a path to citizenship for those already here who have been here a long time and have not been convicted of a crime.

Looks like a very logical systematic approach unless you just don't agree with the concept of national sovereignty and borders.

 

[K1052]

Why should employers be given a pass? If progressives are going to argue they shouldn't be held to account when it comes to using illegal immigrant workers then it should be across the board and we don't prosecute for violations of EEOC, worker safety, or anything else either. I'd like to see some examples made ranging from that roofing contractor to the professor who uses an illegal housekeeper. Start perp walking some folks involved in the next Nannygate instead of just not allowing them to become Attorney General and you'd see changes in behavior. The person making $200k is who you need to target as much as the big business making $200MM.

Creating a legal guest worker/resident program with a path to citizenship would be the humane way of acknowledging the reality we've created. The country as a whole decided (directly or indirectly) to take advantage of cheap labor while a lot people talked out the other side of their mouth about the issue. My Trump loving neighbor who claims to look forward to the wall and deportations just had his house repainted by illegals because they were the cheapest option. Lets at least begin to be honest with ourselves about what we've done and how to fix it without screwing over people who are already getting screwed over.

 

[Yakk]

Has there been a comprehensive study done, not an opinion but a cost study, of the long term costs of giving full citizenship to illegals with their associated benefits? A study by an independant 3rd party, not funded by a political party or corporation. This is not free, and I'm curious how it compares to mass deportation over the long term.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Has there been a comprehensive study done, not an opinion but a cost study, of the long term costs of giving full citizenship to illegals with their associated benefits? A study by an independant 3rd party, not funded by a political party or corporation. This is not free, and I'm curious how it compares to mass deportation over the long term.

Too complicated. The problem would be its always cheaper to let people stay and pay taxes the tricky question is what effect does that have on wages.

 

[Chiropteran]

I already defined a short period of time as one to two years. Our resources would be woefully inadequate to accomplish it in that time.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don't agree.

I see this type of argument a lot here and it's absolutely ridiculous. Asking for credible sources is not an ad-homenium argument, it is a requirement that all parties adhere to a basic standard of evidence, and analyzing the source of your evidence is just as important if not more important than what it says. The idea that I should have to disprove claims from obviously biased sources with a history of misleading statements and evidence is ridiculous and you know it. Provide objective, authoritative sources for your facts and I'd love to debate them with you. Provide links to ultra right wing anti-immigration advocacy groups? No thanks. That would be giving them respect they don't deserve.

It's textbook ad-hominem. You aren't disputing the points made by the article, you are simply attacking the character of the source.

And you also seemed to miss the trees in the forest. Re-read my post if you must: the only take away from that article was that our prisons currently hold a substantial number of illegal immigrants. Unless you think there aren't more than a few thousand illegal immigrants in prison today, my point stands.

You seem to be pushing the idea that this has to be some sort of atomic transaction, where we need capacity to hold 3 million immigrants all at once so we can deport them simultaneously. To me, that is idiotic. Even if we only have capacity for say, 100,000 immigrants, that is more than enough. You process that batch of 100,000, move on to the next, repeat as many times as necessary.

 

[fskimospy]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I don't agree.

It's textbook ad-hominem. You aren't disputing the points made by the article, you are simply attacking the character of the source.

Of course it isn't. By your logic if you cited a piece by Joseph Goebbels that said Germany won the Second World War I would need to seek out a source for a point by point refutation instead of just pointing out he's the Nazi propaganda minister. Surely you can see how stupid that is.

What it would be if anything would be the genetic fallacy, which is discounting something due to the source. The thing is that the genetic fallacy is only fallacious if the source is irrelevant to the argument. It should be obvious that a source from an anti-immigration advocacy group is highly relevant to their statements on immigration.

If you want a more thorough discussion on sources and their credibility read here:

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/01/18/the-genetic-fallacy-when-is-it-okay-to-criticize-a-source/

And you also seemed to miss the trees in the forest. Re-read my post if you must: the only take away from that article was that our prisons currently hold a substantial number of illegal immigrants. Unless you think there aren't more than a few thousand illegal immigrants in prison today, my point stands.

Not really, as my point was that current bed counts are woefully inadequate.

You seem to be pushing the idea that this has to be some sort of atomic transaction, where we need capacity to hold 3 million immigrants all at once so we can deport them simultaneously. To me, that is idiotic. Even if we only have capacity for say, 100,000 immigrants, that is more than enough. You process that batch of 100,000, move on to the next, repeat as many times as necessary.

And what I'm telling you is that processing them like that will either take a VERY long time or you're going to need to spend a lot of money. At the rate we are currently going we process a few hundred thousand a year. Now you're going to have to process that count and double or triple it in order to make a dent. That's $$$$$$$.

You don't have to trust me though, you will see for yourself if he tries it. The costs will be in the many billions of dollars.

 

[Chiropteran]

Of course it isn't. By your logic if you cited a piece by Joseph Goebbels that said Germany won the Second World War I would need to seek out a source for a point by point refutation instead of just pointing out he's the Nazi propaganda minister. Surely you can see how stupid that is.

And NOW you are using a straw man argument. Of course your contrived Nazi argument is stupid: you came up with it.

Ignore the article.

How many immigrants do you think are already in US prisons, today?

Your answer will determine whether you are ignorant (for instance, if you believe there are only a few hundred illegal immigrants in prison), or a bullshit pusher (you knew prisons held a substantial illegal immigrant population, but decided to use the stupid ad-hominem attack anyway).

And what I'm telling you is that processing them like that will either take a VERY long time or you're going to need to spend a lot of money. At the rate we are currently going we process a few hundred thousand a year. Now you're going to have to process that count and double or triple it in order to make a dent. That's $$$$$$$.

Your understanding of basic economics and labor must be deeply flawed if you think it would be cheaper to do them all at once rather than in series.

 

[JSt0rm]

This is the real key. You want to really cut off illegal immigration then you need to go after the employers. Make the consequences so bad that no one would ever consider hiring an illegal alien and they have no incentive to come here.

But then the GOP would lose a boogeyman.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

And what I'm telling you is that processing them like that will either take a VERY long time or you're going to need to spend a lot of money. At the rate we are currently going we process a few hundred thousand a year. Now you're going to have to process that count and double or triple it in order to make a dent. That's $$$$$$$.

You don't have to trust me though, you will see for yourself if he tries it. The costs will be in the many billions of dollars.

How much does it already cost to process those few hundred thousand? A few billion dollars doesn't mean anything anymore. Increasing that 10-fold would still be a relatively small bump on our current level of deficit spending, let alone out of all the ridiculous spending Trump has proposed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Where do you think the convicted criminal immigrants are currently being held?

Let me spell it out for you since you seem to be a bit dense.

We have X immigrants ALREADY in prisons.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ling-illegal-immigrant-criminals-america-2014

We don't need to build new special prisons for many criminal immigrants, they are already in prison.

But here is the truly magical thing: after we deport those criminals, we free up a LOT of space in our prison system. Space that is now available to be used for the next batch.

Guess what? This process can be repeated, indefinitely.

So, uhh, the penalty for crime for illegals should just be deportation?

If not, your reasoning is faulty.

 

[fskimospy]

And NOW you are using a straw man argument. Of course your contrived Nazi argument is stupid: you came up with it.

Ignore the article.

No, I'm taking your argument to its logical conclusion. Either the source matters or it doesn't.

Does the source matter? Yes or no.

How many immigrants do you think are already in US prisons, today?

Your answer will determine whether you are ignorant (for instance, if you believe there are only a few hundred illegal immigrants in prison), or a bullshit pusher (you knew prisons held a substantial illegal immigrant population, but decided to use the stupid ad-hominem attack anyway).

Your understanding of basic economics and labor must be deeply flawed if you think it would be cheaper to do them all at once rather than in series.

That's not what I said at all, go read my post again and then respond.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

So, uhh, the penalty for crime for illegals should just be deportation?

If not, your reasoning is faulty.

The penalty for being in this country illegally should be deportation.

 

[agent00f]

Finally we have someone who won't treat immigration as a sick joke to be played against both ends. There is no middle ground in this; either you (A) support open borders, (B) think 3MM deportations is a 'good start', or (C) you like the status quo because it allows you to have your cheap vegetables and housekeeper while holding their legal status over their head to keep them in line. Deporting 3 million is far, far, far more ethical than what we're doing now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-deport-3-million_us_5828ad2be4b0c4b63b0d22f1

<snip>

President-elect Donald Trump plans to deport or imprison somewhere between 2 million and 3 million undocumented immigrants as soon as he takes office.

In an interview with CBS News that will air Sunday night, Trump said he would launch what could be the largest mass deportation effort in modern history, vowing to immediately deport a number of people comparable to the record-setting figure that President Barack Obama carried out over two terms in office.

“What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate,” Trump said in the interview. “But we’re getting them out of our country, they’re here illegally.”

In saying that 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants with criminal records live in the U.S., Trump was repeating a claim he’d made earlier in the campaign that The Washington Post fact-checked and determined was inaccurate.

The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, estimates that around 820,000 undocumented immigrants have criminal records ― a figure that includes many people whose only conviction is crossing the border illegally. Under prosecutorial discretion guidelines in place since 2011, undocumented migrants with minor crimes are in some cases able to avoid deportation.

</snip>

3 million people broke the law, middle ground would be ENFORCING THE LAW, not ignoring it until the senate can change the law.

It's a whole lot better for the country to instead deport people who don't believe in the american dream anymore. Replacing them with folks who do sure looks like a win-win.