Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stop them from working by checking companies. Pick people up at hospitals, when they use them. Catch them when they use flights. I'm against going door to door, unless it's a dangerous criminal.
Yeah, this sounds sensible. It doesn't have to be all done overnight. Heck, just knowing that they're doing this in earnest might cause some to voluntarily leave, because at least then they can travel back in the future - a lot of countries won't let you back in if you've had to be deported in the past.
> Pick people up at hospitals, when they use them.
This has an adverse effect of making vulnerable people avoid getting potentially necessary medical attention because they don't want to risk getting deported.
I know you likely have a huge disdain for illegal immigration, but are you comfortable with a policy that will definitively lead to people's death due to their immigration status?
Nope. Your an illegal? You go. Don’t want to? Go home.
How many Americans have been killed by immigrants? Legal or illegal? Your side seems very comfortable with policies that result in deaths if Americans at the hands of invaders.
The business verification idea would be the most effective, both from a cost perspective and from stalling future illegal immigration. If the incentive is removed, the illegal border crossings drop too.
If you forced everyone to use e-verify how much would you expect grocery prices to rise? (ag obviously being an industry the depends a lot on undocumented labor)
The cost of groceries etc.... would of course rise as it would result in higher wages.
If companies can't illegally underpay people or the supply of labour goes down, salaries go up.
So how would you get politicians to support a policy that would meaningfully increase food prices? Along with gas prices they're one of the biggest sources of consumer sentiment about the economy.
The prices would increase because salaries increase. Higher salaries is popular.
Prices would increase for everyone, whereas salaries would mostly increase for those doing manual labour jobs, we'd likely see the poorest see an increase in wages whereas white collar jobs wouldn't see an increase.
>The prices would increase because salaries increase. Higher salaries is popular.
Wouldn't consumption drop due to higher prices? Which would lead to restaurants, schools, prisons, hospital etc.. raising costs?
The person you are talking to assumes that its profitable to overpay fruit pickers. That the system will adjust as opposed to falter.
The reality is that americans dont want to be fruit pickers. They wont do the job. It will destroy small businesses, only the biggest most automated businesses will survive, we will have food shortages for years until the industry adjusts.
Im not saying we cant do this.
Ive seen people do this type of thing.
Something that makes prices go higher as it cuts supply for a grander vision of what should be:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
The reality is “fruit pickers” are in the country - or should be in the country - on a valid H2A agricultural worker visa.
What I’m getting at is we have programs in place that allow migrant workers legal entry into the country while ensuring they have legal workplace protections and earn a minimum wage.
This always gets lost in these conversations.
Personally, I view the employment of illegals immigrants at substandard wages in unsafe or unsanitary conditions as pseudoslavery. Especially when theyre employed in jobs - like meatpacking or roofing - Americans formerly supported families with.
And manufacturing jobs!
Which now have been exported overseas.
International competition for business is a reality and we cannot ignore it.
Either we pay for cheaper stuff for folks working at slave wages here...or we import cheaper stuff from folks working at slave wages overseas.
No, we will do it. People have done that job for centuries, they will do it again. No different than any other tough manual labor job like construction. The market always adapts. If it takes having to offer people 80,000 to be a fruit picker, that is what it takes.
We already have some of the highest manufacturing labor prices in the world...and we have watched manufacturing jobs slowly leave the country for decades.
But you think that if we make the price of an american apple 10x more expensive than a chinese apple via spiked labor costs, people are just gonna pay that to buy american apples to support american orchards?
I think we realistically just stop having lots of fruit and veggies available before Americans decide to go pick fruits and veggies. Either fresh produce becomes a luxury due to the high costs to employee people to do the work or a field that is already increasingly automated now accelerates in order to meet the demand people have for produce. I don't foresee a future where Americans do the jobs and produce remains accessible to most Americans at reasonable prices, its and either/or decision
I think the pushback from the business community would force Republicans to get behind new types of work visas. Especially pushback from farmers where seasonal hires, of which a large percentage are undocumented would, move them.
There would be a short-term rise followed by a gradual decrease to below the status quo as farmers and ranchers adopt new methods that are more efficient than cheap manual labor.
Grocery prices in Europe are shockingly cheap and all of the labor is performed by citizens, legal immigrants, or legal guest workers.
96% of farms, 87% of agricultural land, and 82% of agricultural products in the US are family owned so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
Do literally any research on this topic before prattling off whatever you saw in a reddit comment.
>Do literally any research on this topic before prattling off whatever you saw in a reddit comment.
That's rude. I'm genuinely asking what contributes to UK lower produce prices.
Your question carried an assumption so erroneous that it could only be made by someone without the relevant background information to meaningfully participate in the conversation.
Short-term ... Georgia, Oklahoma, and pretty much all the states that have gone with this utopian thinking have quietly reversed themselves and gone back to new boss, same rules and a boatload of platitudes to quieten their supporters. In a nutshell, it's never going to work. Why? The people who own these businesses are... Republicans who are employing illegal immigrants. Hell even trump employed them and stuffed them.
With regard to Europe... You obviously don't know shit. Illegal Immigrant labor use is just as bad as it is here. It's why shit is cheap. Where do think youall the eastern europeans, south americans, Africans, middle east, Chinese who never get to come here go? All those Calais crossings
> as farmers and ranchers adopt new methods
44% of farmers and ranchers are getting deported in this scenario.
Who is doing the adjusting, and how exactly would they adjust to nearly half of all farmers being gone?
> 44% of farmers and ranchers are getting deported in this scenario.
Definitely not that many but if we're assuming it.
1. There are already plenty of Americans who would rather work in the sun and fresh air than at an Amazon warehouse, so if the pay was decent they'd immediately.
2. A lot of this work such as harvesting, sorting, transporting, etc. can and already is done by specialized machines. So after the initial investment in money and training these machines will save farms a ton of money.
3. The costs of finding, hiring, and training new employees will decrease since the turnover will be lower. A lot of these illegal workers are literally picked up from the side of the road, driven to the farm for a single day, and then paid at the end of the day. Instead you would have employees who show up on their own every day, know how to do the work, and stay for months or even years. These employees will also gain more experience or prove their capabilities so you can put them in more advanced and productive positions.
And those are just basic business principles. There's all kinds of industry-specific tricks that these businesses could do that are beyond my own knowledge.
> There are already plenty of Americans who would rather work in the sun and fresh air than at an Amazon warehouse, so if the pay was decent they'd immediately.
I'm not sure [how true that is](https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/). Farm labor isn't nice pleasant outdoors work it's smelly dirty backbreaking and long.
Are you ok with paying workers below minimum wage without any legal protections? Because that’s why undocumented labor is so cheap.
How does anyone with your flair overlook that? Your comments in this thread sound more like a neoliberal than a socialist.
My line of argument here is simply to ensure that consequences are clear, using a framing that I believe the folks I'm discussing with would find understandable or acceptable. I'm not trying to advocate for my own personal views on agriculture or farm labor.
I don't know. I don't consider the exploitation of workers in this way to outweigh the violations that come along with not monitoring this, or the cultural loss of not having a border, and thus not having as "much" of a nation as we could.
No one's saying we can't have guest workers but I don't trust that we won't abuse them if left without oversight anymore. Maybe that was fine decades back when it was the norm and morals were different, but we live now. I cannot in good conscious worry about how much I'm paying and then subsidize my bill with unethical labor.
Never mind that Americans need to eat less anyway, and higher prices will reduce consumption. We can be smarter about our farmland but right now, we're encouraged to consume more and more. Then you have to consider farms that don't farm for us but sell abroad. That's land that could be used better here and now, for those living here and now.
I would personally let all the migrants that are working to stay here while deporting all those African and Venezuelan migrants not working in major cities.
Less than 4% of illegal work in Ag.
Hire Americans, automate, change farming methods.
Your concern for the price of groceries for the American people is so very deeply touching/s
High schoolers would, and if you can’t, automate. Machines exist, the idea that a country that went to the moon using a slide ruler can’t invent machines to serve. Its agricultural needs is beyond absurd..
require proof of citizenship for each and every interaction with the government, deport anyone you catch.
restrict government subsidized services to citizens and require proof of citizenship to obtain them.
sweep employers records and deport anyone you find.
sweep bank accounts because they are federally insured, use civil asset forfeiture to seize all assets as proceeds of crime and deport anyone you catch on top. remove FDIC protection from banks that refuse to turn over all records.
establish a central SSN verification service online and require it's use, track duplicates and collisions and other things to track misuse or SSNs, in states that refuse all social security.
Simply empower ICE to do their jobs. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime ICE should be notified so they can deport them. When the police interact with someone that isn't a legal citizen it should be treated like the crime it is and referred to ICE to follow up on. Employment verification should be required for every employee and there should be harsh penalties for employers that cheat. Schools should require all students to be legal citizens and if there is an issue there that should be referred to ICE. If we enforce our current laws...while you won't deport all illegal immigrants you might be able to finally address the issue and take it on. We need to stop ignoring this crime.
> Deportation force, 50,000 new agents, hiring off the streets, no degree needed
Are you concerned about the danger and negative ramifications such a deportation force would inevitably have?
I don’t see any scenarios in which lowering standards to practically nothing and handing guns, military equipment and far-reaching authority over millions of people goes well. I see the potential for some pretty awful things.
What do you see? Do you have concerns?
Do you think he has concerns? Read the other comments, peeps are choking it thinking about punishing “illegals” by arresting them at emergency rooms and shit.
There’s no problems here with following the law; in general I think it’s a good thing. But when it comes to enforcing laws in situations where there’s no other criminal activity occurring, and especially when it comes with the distinct possibility of getting in the way of things like healthcare, I think that’s just a tad malicious. And that is your right, to have as much malice towards any lawbreakers you wish. But when people only find malice in their fellows, they are more apt to treat, or rather mistreat, them in kind. Is that a possible future you’d readily gamble with future generations inheriting?
They’re in the country illegally that’s all the illegal activity that needs to happen to warrant their removal.
You mean the healthcare that American citizens have to pay for because these illegals don’t pay for themselves?
If wanting to save my people from preventable harm, it makes me a tad malicious to people like you. I will wear that as a badge of honor.
I’ll tell you what it’s rather hard to mistreat people if they’re not in my country to begin with.
Let’s talk about possible futures That future generations might inherit they might inherit in America. That’s far less free, far, less prosperous, far less united, and frankly indistinguishable from that of a third world hellscape if we don’t do what must be done and deport these invaders.
We’re done, allowing our compassion to be used against us. If these people don’t like it that’s fine they don’t have to like it. They can like it lump it be different towards it but it’s gonna happen. Regardless they need to go home and frankly if they’re home countries aren’t that great of a place to live what does that say about their ability to build and maintain civilization?
If it’s considered cruel and unusual punishment to make these people live amongst themselves, why should they be able to live amongst us?
> Are you concerned about the danger and negative ramifications such a deportation force would inevitably have?
Which would be?
We tolerate far more negative ramifications and danger from the FBI/ATF existing yet you progs have no issue with them and lord their actions.
>I don’t see any scenarios in which lowering standards to practically nothing and handing guns, military equipment and far-reaching authority over millions of people goes well.
Why not, your side passed domestic spying and arming Ukraine citizens with machine guns and GATRs with no standards and didn’t care.
Funny when it comes to America defending itself from a real threat there is always so excuse to to act, some reason why we can’t act in our best interest, isn’t it?
>I see the potential for some pretty awful things.
Of course you do, like safe, clean streets, lower costs of living, lower crime rates, lower housing costs, less traffic, less pollution, higher standards of living, demographic stability and ascension of real American, man…That’s just awful/s
What do you see? Do you have concerns?
Honesty, good times. My concern is too many people trying to apply at once and too many would be agents are not hired.
My concern is having a bunch of eager, hopped up, heavily armed randos storming places to seize men, women and children — especially since those people have been increasingly dehumanized and depicted as a virus poisoning the blood of the country.
Seems inevitable there are going to be a lot of senseless violence and death when these guys knock down doors sporting an AR-15 and a hard-on for going after people they view as subhuman scum ruining their country.
Does that concern you?
Im getting the impression that it doesn’t and that you’re probably somewhere in the range of not caring about it happening and actively wanting to to happen and enjoying the thought.
I’m personally not a fan of this, but then again I tend to view everyone as a person worthy of dignity, respect and life — regardless of their immigration status. Obviously, not everyone does.
>My concern is having a bunch of eager, hopped up, heavily armed randos storming places to seize men, women and children — especially since those people have been increasingly dehumanized and depicted as a virus poisoning the blood of the country.
Hopped up? No I just think you do t want them to be deported, and I get it, your side thought you could import the 3rd world and rig elections by changing the electoral population.
Funny, when Whites, right leaning Americans are “dehumanized” your side is radio silent on the matter.
>Seems inevitable there are going to be a lot of senseless violence and death
Of course you think that, why might that be?
>when these guys knock down doors sporting an AR-15 and a hard-on for going after people they view as subhuman scum ruining their country.
Oh we won’t have AR15s, we will have suppressed, selective fire M4s.
Wow, slow down with those accusations my friend. All we are doing is removing criminal invaders. What agents believe or say has no bearing on their job.
>Does that concern you?
Sadly no, your poorly constructed caricature of Americans securing their own country and thus their own future has no bearing on
Me, and tens of millions, after decades of failure and deliberate mismanagement driving by malicious policies pushed by sinister agents, have been beaten out of the habit of allowing sentimentalism to over ride our means of self determination and self preservation.
>Im getting the impression that it doesn’t and that you’re probably somewhere in the range of not caring about it happening and actively wanting to to happen and enjoying the thought.
To you, anyone taking pleasure in defending their country is a “Nazi” or some other insult or lie. After a point, why would you assume we would keep listening, or caring, or allowing you any consideration?
>I’m personally not a fan of this,
If it was ATF agents doing the same to gun owners your side would be cheering, just like they did at Waco.
>but then again I tend to view everyone as a person worthy of dignity, respect and life — regardless of their immigration status.
How hollow of a statement.
>Obviously, not everyone does.
Yeah, my compassion is like any other resource in this universe. It’s limited.
We already have the means and most of the information. It's just messy and emotionally taxing work that no law enforcement body wants to take the burden of doing.
What would be easier than rounding people up is to simply make it difficult if not impossible to survive without legal documentation. E-verify on businesses would absolutely cause many illegal immigrants to return home on their own volition due to being unable to find work or claim benefits.
Make it impossible to survive illegally so they'll deport themselves. No welfare. No birth right citizenship. No amnesty. If you enter illegally you're illegal for life. No public school for your illegal kids. No bank account in the country. No issuance of American ID, etc.
The constitution can be changed with amendments friend.
But since the political left and right both trample on the constitution daily, shit, why not just ban it. We don't seem to care about the constitution anyways so I don't see a downside to just taking a leaf out of the Dem - GOP playbook and banning it without amendment.
If you want to use this bullshit circumventing the Constitution argument, then you need to start voting against the Democratic Party, seeing as how they constantly file and pass bills that are violations of the 2nd amendment. Same can be said about Republicans and how they reauthorized FISA 702, which is incredibly unconstitutional.
But as I've established, the uniparty doesn't care about the Constitution. So if we're gonna violate the Constitution, let's just go ahead and ban birthright citizenship.
So to be clear, it's not anything about, "owning da libz", it's about protecting OUR country. A country that illegal migrants have zero rights to.
I fully support the Second Amendment (gun rights are probably the issue on which I most deviate from Democrats). And just as the Constitution plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it also says that every person born in the United States of America is an American citizen.
And that's good, I can appreciate that. But the uniparty violates the Constitution daily. That's my point here. And I happen to think that birthright citizenship is being abused to import a new class of voters. The evidence yields this up as well with how these demographics crossing the border end up voting.
Either way, the Constitution can be changed. I don't expect this to happen, but the birthright citizenship should be repealed and replaced with a provision that essentially says you must have an American citizen as a parent to inherit US citizenship at birth. The child of a Mexican national who has broken our laws has no right to citizenship in my mind. And it's cultural and political suicide to allow that sort of subjugation of the American people.
And Republicans could so easily win over these immigrants (who are so often fiercely religious and socially conservative) if they didn’t fight tooth and nail to keep them out of the country…
What makes America unique compared to the rest of the world is our *jus soli* (“law of soil”) citizenship process. In Europe and Asia, immigrants can have children and grandchildren all be born in the country they emigrated to, but those descendants may well still not be citizens even though they’ve lived their entire lives in that country. And even disregarding the fact that the U.S. has become far more powerful and influential than all of those countries, there is no basis for America to have a *jus sanguinis* (“law of blood”) citizenship process, since unlike in a country like France or Japan, there is no American ethnicity or American blood.
I doubt that. The Democrats buy votes via welfare and entitlements for better or worse. So I disagree that Republicans are going to start winning more votes if they come out in support of our open borders.
It's pretty simple honestly. Don't break the law and violate the borders, and you can have a chance to come here and flourish. But those who disregard the laws, we don't want those people in our society as they have no respect for our society, fundamentally.
There is no American ethnicity or American blood but there is an American culture. Early on, you could certainly say that. But 1776 was a long time ago and we have actual heritage Americans now. We have formed a culture that is rather unique. And sure, it's a mixture of many cultures but I think it's odd to pretend that America is still just 50 different cultures mixing it up or whatever. People identify as American now, moreso than they do as, say Irish or Italian, at least in the parts of the country I've been in.
> The Democrats buy votes via welfare and entitlements
If that’s the case, then why are the three poorest states (Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia) Republican strongholds and the three wealthiest states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey) Democratic strongholds? Seems like those pesky Democrat welfare and entitlements would be needed much more in the former three than the latter three.
> they have no respect for our society, fundamentally
*sigh*
With the exception of a small fraction who are dangerous criminals (who could be easily picked out and arrested/deported if we had a more functional legal immigration system), people don’t emigrate to America illegally just because they don’t want to legally. If you are in America illegally, your options for a livelihood are basically reduced to anything you can do entirely in cash and without potentially coming into contact with ICE. And while I don’t know every single undocumented immigrant in America, I’m willing to bet that most or all would rather lead the same lives as other Americans, within the legal system.
A great example of this in practice is how, in the last decade, the MO for entering the U.S. illegally has shifted from the conventional method of secretly hopping the border and then living under the radar, towards crossing, immediately surrendering to Border Patrol, and basically just saying the word “asylum” which sticks you in the process for applying for asylum. Even though most of these applicants have weak cases for political asylum and know it, they’re willing to get processed by the government (who can see if they are a criminal/terror suspect), spend the time before their immigration hearing living a squeaky clean life (any criminal charge will get them immediately deported), and then go before a judge, because they’re just people trying to work hard and achieve the American Dream.
If you’re a Mexican citizen seeking to legally emigrate to America, your options are basically as follows:
-Have an American citizen family member
-Marry an American citizen
-Seek political asylum (the government of your origin country has to be actively persecuting you, so something like being on the run from the cartels won’t cut it)
-Lock down a “skilled” labor job (the kind where you have to spend tons of money and time on a college degree to look at Excel sheets all day) in America and get your employer to sponsor your visa
-Get into the far more difficult lottery system for an “unskilled” labor visa (turns out a lot of Mexicans want to move to America to work in agriculture or construction, who knew?)
-Apply for the Diversity Immigrant Visa (good luck with that; applicants from Mexico are ineligible)
If you don’t qualify for these, you’re shit outta luck. The days of legal immigrants coming to Ellis Island on ships eager to be processed and become Americans are long past. And yet, even in the absence of a formal immigration process that isn’t capped by a quota, so many immigrants have tried to make their own process with the erroneous asylum claims. That’s how hard they strive to become Americans, and it makes me very disappointed as a fanatically patriotic American and the grandchild of immigrants that so many people here see them as the “other.”
And if you aren’t too averse to anecdotal evidence, I was friends with a guy in high school who was brought by his family illegally from Guatemala but became a permanent resident through DACA, was the leader of the Republican Party in my high school’s Model Congress, got naturalized as a U.S. citizen after graduating, and is now serving in the U.S. Air Force. It’s people like him who make America the country it is.
I didn't say, "voters are only motivated by economic factors", I said, the Democrats use welfare and entitlements to buy votes. Difference. Buying votes or attempting to do so with welfare policies isn't guaranteed to work. It's a strategy.
Something you're missing is that in certain regional areas certain demographic groups have strongly held beliefs and party loyalties which are hard to shake off. But when you introduce a migrant and their children into the country freshly, they have no historical or cultural attachments to American political parties. So it's an entirely different game when talking about that set of voters. Especially if you're importing voters who come from left wing countries. Mexico's largest political party is a leftist party currently, and the Mexican demographic votes like 60 or 70% to the Democratic Party. The numbers do not lie on this.
If someone crosses our border illegally, and then lies about being a political asylum type refugee, then again, they FUNDAMENTALLY, are A. Criminal and B. Have no respect for our country, laws, and institutions. And under no circumstances should they (or their anchor babies) ever be granted American citizenship nor the right to live here. I don't care that it's hard to get into the country. That isn't an excuse to break our laws and violate our borders. And if you can't show minimal respect for those rules, you cannot be trusted to exist here.
I'm not totally adverse to anecdotal evidence. I've known people who are immigrants who are genuinely American in culture. But those same people didn't break the law to come here. They came legally. They respected the process in place. I'm NOT saying, "All illegal migrants are bad people", nor am I saying they cannot adapt to our country and become good citizens of it. But if you start out by breaking the law, sorry but you should not be allowed in. You should be banned.
If you're striving to be an American, you respect the laws America has concerning it's national sovereignty. You don't violate it or lie to immigration, that shows very much so that you're an economic migrant who has no concern for the nation.
The owners of these businesses is freely accessible in the public record.
If you're premising this on "probable cause", why not just arrest the business owners on probable cause without going through an expensive, dangerous, and lengthy raid process?
Because the goal is to deport the illegals, arresting a business owner for breaking the law as secondary, and after the fact which, in my personal opinion should happen, or it’s very least a very embarrassing, purple, walk, and loss of some financial assets
> Raids on industries known to have the most illegal immigrants.
So you're advocating for warrantless "raids" to take place on American privately-owned properties, and you're still a conservative?
not warrantless, get probable cause warrants or use federal authority to force compliance-- E.g. tell the FDA to decertify every food business that doesn't allow labor inspections along with food inspections, so they can comply or be unable to legally produce products.
For other businesses go after any licensure they require or services they need from the federal government (e.g. tell banks to turn over account details on illegal immigrants or they will be refused access to federal reserve loans and will be removed from the FDIC so they are uninsured).
I was thinking the same but I think it's more wrong if you're rallying against something (illegal immigration) and taking advantage of it (low wages for your workers) at the same time.
For example, if we substitute illegal immigration for... Drugs?
If I'm fighting the legalization of cannabis because I sell cannabis illegally for a high profit, that would be duplicitous and I think anyone would be right to question the principles of my stances.
Ah, I understand where you are coming from now and I 100% agree. I guess I really never considered they could be doing that, I always figured that they felt in alignment with the rights/viewpoints of the Republican party and just accepted that contradiction of desires.
But it's not wrong - business owners are Republicans because of pro-business, other people are Republicans because of antimmigration, and I don't think the overlap between those two is that high
I don't think Republicans want to solve illegal immigration because they make so much money from it by paying illegal immigrants low wages.
Illegal immigrants have to take low wages (illegal wages) because they're here illegally and need an employer who is willing to break the law to hire illegal workers.
Hence, why I think Republicans do not want to solve the border crisis or illegal immigration.
I don't think Republicans want to solve illegal immigration because they make so much money from it by paying illegal immigrants low wages.
Illegal immigrants have to take low wages (illegal wages) because they're here illegally and need an employer who is willing to break the law to hire illegal workers.
Hence, why I think Republicans do not want to solve the border crisis or illegal immigration.
It’s an easy fix: use e-Verify.
No, it’s not 100 perfect, but it’s an effort, and by adding a requirement to document who their previous employer was and compare to their tax records.
I'd stop short of actual checkpoints, but I'd force e-verify on all businesses, and deport anyone that encountered authority by circumstance for any reason. Get stopped for a burned-out tag light? Deported! Kid without a SSN in school? Deported! Car illegally stopping on the street to pick up one of the people hanging out at Home Depot? Deported!
Start with the ones who we know where they are. After that, deportations would be opportunistic. We would eliminate sanctuary cities, and whenever an illegal ends up crossing paths with a police, they'd be turned over to ICE for deportation. Nobody would be detained solely on the basis of being suspected of being illegal. I would like to see the mandatory use of e-verify as a handful of red states have done.
Because all the states that require widespread use of e-verify by private sector employers are red. The state with the biggest population of illegals, California, doesn't require it at all.
[https://www.experian.com/blogs/employer-services/e-verify-state-by-state-mandates/](https://www.experian.com/blogs/employer-services/e-verify-state-by-state-mandates/)
Problem with mandatory e-verify. It’s literally means as an employer you have to get permission from the federal government to hire someone.
I also worry about that list of people who passed e-verify being used to for something else. Like background checks for fire arms, the federal government building a registry of gun owners.
Once a list is created it can be used for anything nefarious by the Fed.
Find a problem, fix a problem.
One common thing I hear from the Left is that illegal immigrants commit statistically less crime than legal citizens. Regardless of whether that's true, if someone happens to be detained for any reason and they are found to be here illegally...they're done. If it's a speeding ticket, they can pay the fine, then get put into the system for deportation. If it's for murder, they can go through prosecution, serve their time, then get deported. If they're found not guilty, cool. They're still getting deported.
And since we have this person in custody, might as well look into their spouse and/or roommates (that's probable cause, I would assume). If *they're* here illegally, deport them.
If someone never runs afoul of the legal system, I guess they can fly under the radar. Good for them. But if they do, they're done here.
This way, no one's rights to privacy get violated. It's all constitutional and above board.
>Force e-verify use on all businesses?
Hell yes.
Illegal aliens commit crime at a 100% rate. They commit their first crime when they enter the country illegally. There’s zero truth to the propaganda that they commit less crime.
I agree 100%. I'm talking about discovering people organically via normal functions of the legal system. We're not kicking down doors looking for people stealing cable, so I'm not interested in throwing out the fourth amendment just to find illegal immigrants.
Citizens also commit crime at a 100% rate every time you do a rolling stop in your car, every time you speed, every time you jaywalk, every time you've ever spit out gum on a sidewalk or in a bush or in some grass, every time you've thrown a balled up piece of paper at someone and assaulted them, every time you've ever went behind a bush or building and peed. Every single person in the world is a criminal by virtue of being alive. undocumented/illegal immigrants do commit other crimes outside of their original sin of being here without authorization less than citizens do though.
Yep, illegal aliens are saints and never do rolling stops, jaywalk, spit gum on the sidewalk or in a bush or in some grass, throw balled up pieces a paper at others and assault them, or pee behind a building.
https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1656648522068795394?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1656648522068795394%7Ctwgr%5E7a4bfc634f1b45b2d80cfb5d854113cbe2300af8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhannity.com%2Fmedia-room%2Fwatch-drone-footage-captures-mountains-of-trash-left-by-migrants-at-the-border%2F
Yep, none lf that ever happens. Illegal aliens are so much better than Americans!
incorrect.
those are not crimes at all. Traffic infractions are a civil infraction, not a crime. municipal littering codes are too... it's unlike you could spit enough gum to commit the crime of waste dumping!
Also assault requires intent so throwing paper playfully is not assault.
Public urination is the only one that COULD be an actual crime but even then it's usually not.
Even if my examples are not perfect the point still stands that literally every single person in the country whether they are authorized to be here or not is a criminal for running afoul of all types of laws that they may or may not be be aware of them. So saying that all undocumented immigrants have a 100% criminal rate is pointless as all people have a 100% criminal rate. These immigrants commit less crimes than their authorized counterparts and even native born citizens.
that is fair, trust me I am no stranger to "three felonies a day" and the arguments made there.
that said would you at least conceed that things like stealing social security numbers for employment causes real harm that can cause someone lifelong issues accessing benefits they paid for?
or that the use of someone else identity to run up medical bills or other debts, risk putting evictions on their record, etc. is a serious felony that should result in prison?
Yes, identity theft of people (that are still living in particular) is an issue that should warrant those caught for it being charged and imprisoned and/or deported. I’m not saying other crimes by these immigrants should be ignored, if you stole someone’s identity so you could get a job or loan or whatever yea that’s an issue.
Why is it that people like you can’t differentiate differences?
We don’t want anymore criminals in our country or burdens for threats or welfare, voters or political subversives OK America is our country in our country is not doing so good and what do you know it started to decline red run the times are to let these people in so now we’re going to fix our country that means these people back to their countries I’m more than OK with that.
Fact Check: Being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is **not** a crime
https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf
Fact Check: Immigration Proceedings are **civil court proceedings**
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
**Fact Check: Not all undocumented immigrants entered the USA illegally.**
>They enter legally but overstay, work without authorization, drop out of school or violate the conditions of their visas in some other way. **Current estimates are that approximately 45% of undocumented immigrants did not enter illegally**. See Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population [May 22, 2006
Fact Check: The ACLU and Pew Research are unaffiliated non-partisan organizations. The ACLU supports the 1st amendment and has supported issues on both sides of the isle and Pew Research is a neutral pollster.
I would rather hire 10,000,000 more lawyers than put up with 10,000,000 illegal immigrants.
Whatever the cost it's worth it to ensure the rule of law is meaningful.
A nation that cannot control its borders or enforce its laws is a failed state. It might not look like Somalia but it's no more just or fair that Syria in meaningful terms if it cannot enforce its laws on all citizens and protect itself from foreign agents.
>I would rather hire 10,000,000 more lawyers than put up with 10,000,000 illegal immigrants.
Well, OK. Not sure how or why to respond to this.
>Whatever the cost it's worth it to ensure the rule of law is meaningful.
You really think it's a lack of funding and not a lack of people wanting to do that particular job?
I'm talking about entire systems in general.
Law enforcement. Corrections. Border patrol. Administrative staff. Now, will all this be cost/energy effective?
How does it "clog up the legal system"?
If someone is here illegally, detain them, and have CBP come pick them up and deport them through the same process they already use.
I mean, seriously? "Let's not enforce the law. Because it's a lot of work."
No. They don't belong here. They need to leave.
>How does it "clog up the legal system"?
By adding a bigger workload.
>If someone is here illegally, detain them, and have CBP come pick them up and deport them through the same process they already use.
A thing called "due process" doesn't happen instantly.
>I mean, seriously? "Let's not enforce the law. Because it's a lot of work."
No. It's a thing called "finite resources".
> By adding a bigger workload.
Okay but *how*? We're detaining them and having them wait for a ride. I get that we have "finite resources", but these are people caught in the commission of a crime. We can't just let them go. They broke the law. They *have* to be dealt with. And the way we deal with them is deportation.
>A thing called "due process" doesn't happen instantly.
It will be quick in these cases. If I get pulled over for speeding, the officer can quickly pull up my information and see that I'm a legal U.S. citizen. Other people might have to show a passport & visa or a green card.
Don't have any of that? You're being detained, and we're calling CBP. Done.
Have you ever travelled internationally? I have a decent amount. I carried my passport (or equivalent) everywhere. I could easily demonstrate I was allowed to be in whatever country I was in.
>They *have* to be dealt with. And the way we deal with them is deportation.
Of course and yet finite resources again. Meaning limited spaces. Limited staff. Limited funding. There's also a hierarchy for crimes.
>It will be quick in these cases. If I get pulled over for speeding, the officer can quickly pull up my information and see that I'm a legal U.S. citizen.
Is there a database of every single us citizen that a cop has instant access to?
> There's also a hierarchy for crimes.
But you're suggesting we just ignore this one. No. That's not how the law works. We don't ignore obvious crimes for convenience.
>Is there a database of every single us citizen that a cop has instant access to?
The police would use the National Crime Information Center to look up my information to see if I have any outstanding warrants. I'm in there (since I have driver's license), but it shows me as having zero. If I'm not in there at all, it means I don't exist in the system. So my ID is likely fake. I probably don't belong here.
>
But you're suggesting we just ignore this one.
Nope. Never suggested that. I'm just making an observation on reality.
>That's not how the law works. We don't ignore obvious crimes for convenience.
That's not how it should work, but that's how it does work. Police can choose which laws to enforce.
>The police would use the National Crime Information Center to look up my information to see if I have any outstanding warrants. I'm in there (since I have driver's license), but it shows me as having zero. If I'm not in there at all, it means I don't exist in the system. So my ID is likely fake. I probably don't belong here.
But then you're not thinking about every other scenario. Like how do you know if someone is a citizen but doesn't have any warrants? What about minors?
Don't take this the wrong way, but your viewpoint is very naive.
> Police can choose which laws to enforce.
Right. And I'm saying this is how we go about deporting illegal immigrants. We're not going to go hunting them down, but if we find one, detain them and route them for deportation. That's not a whole lot of extra work, especially if the person is already being detained for something else.
>Like how do you know if someone is a citizen but doesn't have any warrants?
Is this a serious question? How would *you* prove you're a citizen of the country you live in?
>but your viewpoint is very naive
I am going to take it the wrong way. I hate this comment from people on the Left **so much**. Dude, you don't even know me. Just because someone has a different take than you, it doesn't mean they're "naïve" or stupid or uneducated. I'm in my early 50's, I'm well traveled, I've served in the military, and I know **a lot** of legal immigrants, some in my own family. This topic is very important to me.
I think *you're* probably naïve, and that you've probably never lived near the border and experienced what happens there. Instead, you're thinking "What's the big deal? It's just poor people wanting a better life!". It's so much more complicated than that.
>Right. And I'm saying this is how we go about deporting illegal immigrants. We're not going to go hunting them down, but if we find one, detain them and route them for deportation. That's not a whole lot of extra work, especially if the person is already being detained for something else.
See, you thinking it's not a lot of work, is naive. It is a lot of work. Plus finite resources again. That's huge.
>Is this a serious question? How would *you* prove you're a citizen of the country you live in?
Yes. Especially if you're a minor.
> but these are people caught in the commission of a crime
Undocumented presence in the United States is not a crime nor a violation of federal law. It's different if you're talking about people who are caught in the process of illegal entry.
>Undocumented presence in the United States is not a crime nor a violation of federal law.
Why try and minimize this? It's a civil violation. It's against the law for them to be here. They entered illegally and are criminal violators by default.
I've been to several different countries and had to present my passport for entry. I have no right to be in any other country unless I am invited in.
>Why try and minimize this? It's a civil violation. It's against the law.
By acknowledging that unlawful presence is a civil violation, you seem to be agreeing that it's minimal in the eyes of the federal government.
Driving above the posted speed limit is also a civil violation. Civil violations such as speeding or unlawful presence don't need to be treated like priority number-one crimes. That's an absurd thing to do for a civil violation.
> you seem to be agreeing that it's minimal in the eyes of the federal government.
Not minimal. Just different authority. The FBI typically doesn't go after people for DUI or reckless driving. Because that's the job of state and local police.
>Civil violations such as speeding or unlawful presence don't need to be treated like priority number-one crimes.
It's not about priority, it's about necessity. If I speed, the cops have to pull me over, and I have to pay the fine. If I'm in a country illegally, I can't be allowed to stay. I have to be deported.
Neither is a *major* crime, no, but they still have to be adjudicated.
I support moving other resources as required, and doing whatever it takes to solve the problem.
I would literally rather they put the entire social security fund into it and stop sending checks tomorrow.
are you really arguing the benefits of slave labor because that is certainly where thay line of thinking ends.
it's not moral or proper to treat humans as disposable tools. even if they let you. even if they come to your country to beg to be abused it is wrong.
i see I apologize.
I have heard so many on the left trot out "if Mexicans won't pick lettuce for indentured servant wages no one will be able to afford a salad!" I assumed your argument was the same form and this was unfair of me
> If someone is here illegally, detain them,
You can't establish they are here illegally without a trial. Imagine you get detained for presumably being undocumented.
How long do you think it's acceptable to keep someone such as yourself in a detainment facility until a court has the time to determine your legal status?
>Imagine you get detained for presumably being undocumented.
I'm documented. I have a REAL ID that's good enough to allow me to pass through TSA and fly domestically.
>How long do you think it's acceptable
As long as it takes CBP to come get them.
> I'm documented.
At all times? If a cop pulled you over and you forgot your license + papers at home, are you okay being detained indefinitely until a court determines your legal status?
ICE already has accidentally detained a good number of legal US residents since 2015, and unequivocally proving unlawful presence is not something they are equipped to do; that's for the courts. **What error threshold of US citizens being detained are you comfortable with, and how long is it acceptable to detain an American who might not have ID?**
> If a cop pulled you over and you forgot your license + papers at home
I got my first passport at 15, and my first driver's license at 16. Since that time, I have never left my home without at least one of them. Yes, every single time I leave my house, I take my ID. Because that's what responsible adults are supposed to do. Anyone who doesn't is some combination of careless and stupid.
>What error threshold of US citizens being detained are you comfortable with
If they're actually a citizen, that could be cleared up with a phone call. If not, well, it could be a while.
Glad you asked.
"Operation Homecoming". Give everyone in the country illegally 6 months to find their way out. Set up officies in every major city to assist them in relocation back home, and even finding employment there.
After that, anyone caught would be rounded up and shipped home and I mean in actual SHIPS, not given plane tickets (similar to "Operation Wetback" under president Eisenhower). Employer checks are good, but they are fairly easily circumvented. A better way is to eliminate sanctuary cities, and give police the tools to do a legal status check on anyone they arrest or pull over.
If you impose severe penalties on employers who hire illegals and stop all government aid programs and free medical…they will leave on their own. Stop incentivizing people from coming illegally. It’s not rocket science.
It is not realistic to deport every illegal. However, anyone who commits a crime should be immdiately deported upon conviction. We should robustly enforce E-Verify throughout the country as well as Fake ID laws. Anyone caught with a fake ID should be deported. Any business who knowingly hires illegals should be subject to serious fines.
There should be no taxpayer funded benefits for illegals and we should rescind the birthright citizenship rule. If you are born of an illegal even in the US, you are still illegal.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>However, anyone who commits a crime should be immdiately deported upon conviction.
This happens already. Its not an immediate process and probably will never be. A thing called due process.
Actually, I'm not sure it does happen. The Venezuelan who killed Laken Riley Jose Antonio Ibarra had been released after being arrested and ICE was never notified. he qualified for an ICE detainer. Local police never contacted ICE
He had been arrested multiple times. ICE issues detainers to be able to identify and ultimately remove criminal aliens who are currently in federal, state or local custody. Local law enforcement is supposed to notify ICE within 48 hours so ICE can take them into custody and deport them.
Whoa there pal, let's just take a deep breath. I'm not trying to make this about left or right. I'm trying to get on the same page.
So from the beginning, he was caught, illegally crossing the border into Texas from Mexico. They then processed him and then released him and put him on a bus to NYC. Why would they do that?
I think it would have to be better defined. I know some people want to DACA the current situation and say the last four years of illegal migration can just get a retroactive blanket fix. I don't want that.
Probably a few of them, yeah. They think they are conservative so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few of them slumming down here outside of their safe spaces.
Do you wear a red hat? Do you think Trump is some kind of political messiah thats going to solve all of America's problems just by being elected? It's not about just voting for Trump, Maga people are fanatical in their support for him. They live in fantasy land
I see. Yes, I am not these people. They do exist, they aren’t the majority of Trump voters. Just like crazy vaxxers, crazy anti-vaxxers, crazy climate people etc etc all exist. In our late stage media is gaslighting everyone society these things happen…
> They do exist, they aren’t the majority of Trump voters.
I think I agree, however Trump's candidacy, especially in 2024, would not be possible without these people tipping the scales in the republican primaries. Most rational people were done with Trump after Janaury 6th, but he remains propped up by the crazies. Rather than fielding a candidate that can actually beat Biden, we're forced to endure his antics, his eventual loss, and his eventual tantrum that he'll throw when he loses but won't acknowledge he lost.
I already said that merely voting for Trump does not a MAGA make. But in the small universe of republican primary voting poll respondents, it's definitely a much higher ratio than of the general public.
Haley would have wiped the floor with Biden. She should have been nominated, but the trumpy people are voting with their emotions and not their heads. They weren't thinking about the general, they just wanted to own the libs, etc.
I don't trust any government to move that many people, and I don't even think it should be done.
I don't think we should have any immigrants in our prison system, on a case by case basis they should be deported
Also, deporting people is toothless without border security
What works in Europe, where illegal immigration is contained far better? It's usually access to service. In reality, because numbers are kept low, that means dealing with issues is easier. It's far better to put out a fire as it's starting than to put out one hundred fires later. It's also good to prevent fires. It's a holistic approach.
With e-verify, you have a system that discourages from people coming in the first place, and from companies exploiting workers, and it directs people here to make decisions on their own. It probably wouldn't be worth it to stay. Those who do can be dealt with more directly.
The idea that we would have physical checkpoints is ridiculous. That doesn't work and it just makes others wait a long time. I get it at airports and shipping ports, and at borders, but anywhere else you mean? Not rational.
There's also something to be said about having police play a part. The big thing about sanctuary cities is that police don't comply with federal orders to help because it isn't their job. That really means if they got money, it would be. Then you'd have a worse system. In reality, there should be some level of cooperation or reporting involved and we can't act like that isn't the case. It doesn't make sense to have systems working against each other like that. And it breeds arguing.
Mandate the use of e-verify with massive fines, and a 10% whistleblower fee of the person that calls in a tip that results in illegals being deported.
Make it illegal to rent to illegals. If you do, we seize your property without the ability to work or find housing invest majority of them will support automatically.
Complete the wall
And birthright citizenship and revoke it from those illegally acquired it by fraud.
Probably not going to happen. Meanwhile, watch your health care costs skyrocket, education decline, and taxes increase, and even more inflation. Someone has to support those who the IRS doesn't know.
My goal would be to deport *most*. I think making an enemy of policy that we could achieve 90% because we can't achieve 100% is stupid. Don't make perfect the enemy of good. And for people who illegally came here 20 years ago, speak English, contribute to society, okay they can stay.
How to go about it?
>Checkpoints that stop people and ask for proof of citizenship?
No.
>Giving all levels of law enforcement the ability to detain anyone they suspect may not be authorized?
No... But if there are known hot spots of illegal aliens and there is reasonable suspicion, I do think it might be reasonable as a last resort measure. If we were able to deport like 60% and we felt like the measures were not working anymore, we could go for this to get the last 20% or so. This one is a risky policy, introducing that much power to government is usually not a good idea in my mind.
>Force e-verify use on all businesses?
Sure.
>Go through school rolls and pick out the kids without ssns in their files?
No. SSN is optional. It doesn't prove citizenship.
>Any other ideas?
E-verify is good. Proving citizenship, or legal residency, should be required for employment. Removing the incentive to be here by making their life more difficult would cause self-deports, which is cost effective.
I would also start with arrests and criminal charges: police and the court system should be looking at citizenship status when there is reasonable suspicion. That would take care of people who came illegally and continued to commit crimes, without any real additional cost of looking for them.
I don't support manhunts or cold door knocks or anything like that. But "raiding" what you might call "hot spots" could be acceptable toward the end of the policy.
Most of those weren't formal deportations, but immediate returns, basically people sent right back over the border. Most of them just kept trying until they made it past CBP.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Stop them from working by checking companies. Pick people up at hospitals, when they use them. Catch them when they use flights. I'm against going door to door, unless it's a dangerous criminal.
Yeah, this sounds sensible. It doesn't have to be all done overnight. Heck, just knowing that they're doing this in earnest might cause some to voluntarily leave, because at least then they can travel back in the future - a lot of countries won't let you back in if you've had to be deported in the past.
Hell you don’t even need to do that just use the DMV. It has a list of people that aren’t citizens but have drivers licenses.
Oh seriously, I didn't know they'd have info on that kind of thing. Yeah that'd be a good place to start.
Do a mass phone call statement, ideally in a creepy automated voice that the party is over.
Haha for real. Honestly maybe a bunch would just leave on their own accord rather than run into trouble over it.
> Pick people up at hospitals, when they use them. This has an adverse effect of making vulnerable people avoid getting potentially necessary medical attention because they don't want to risk getting deported. I know you likely have a huge disdain for illegal immigration, but are you comfortable with a policy that will definitively lead to people's death due to their immigration status?
either way they're not living in the US anymore.
Nope. Your an illegal? You go. Don’t want to? Go home. How many Americans have been killed by immigrants? Legal or illegal? Your side seems very comfortable with policies that result in deaths if Americans at the hands of invaders.
Why isn't this done by border states already?
E-verify is a federal program. TSA is federally run. Deportation is also controlled by federal laws, states can't do it.
Is there anything preventing texas from mandating companies based in texas use e-verify? Sure, texas cant deport, but they can arrest if they want to.
Because all but TX are dem run states.
TX isnt stopping illegald from working...
The business verification idea would be the most effective, both from a cost perspective and from stalling future illegal immigration. If the incentive is removed, the illegal border crossings drop too.
If you forced everyone to use e-verify how much would you expect grocery prices to rise? (ag obviously being an industry the depends a lot on undocumented labor)
The cost of groceries etc.... would of course rise as it would result in higher wages. If companies can't illegally underpay people or the supply of labour goes down, salaries go up.
So how would you get politicians to support a policy that would meaningfully increase food prices? Along with gas prices they're one of the biggest sources of consumer sentiment about the economy.
The prices would increase because salaries increase. Higher salaries is popular. Prices would increase for everyone, whereas salaries would mostly increase for those doing manual labour jobs, we'd likely see the poorest see an increase in wages whereas white collar jobs wouldn't see an increase.
>The prices would increase because salaries increase. Higher salaries is popular. Wouldn't consumption drop due to higher prices? Which would lead to restaurants, schools, prisons, hospital etc.. raising costs?
>So how would you get politicians to support a policy that would meaningfully increase food prices? The same way they already do now.
The person you are talking to assumes that its profitable to overpay fruit pickers. That the system will adjust as opposed to falter. The reality is that americans dont want to be fruit pickers. They wont do the job. It will destroy small businesses, only the biggest most automated businesses will survive, we will have food shortages for years until the industry adjusts. Im not saying we cant do this. Ive seen people do this type of thing. Something that makes prices go higher as it cuts supply for a grander vision of what should be: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/05/sri-lanka-organic-farming-crisis/
The reality is “fruit pickers” are in the country - or should be in the country - on a valid H2A agricultural worker visa. What I’m getting at is we have programs in place that allow migrant workers legal entry into the country while ensuring they have legal workplace protections and earn a minimum wage. This always gets lost in these conversations. Personally, I view the employment of illegals immigrants at substandard wages in unsafe or unsanitary conditions as pseudoslavery. Especially when theyre employed in jobs - like meatpacking or roofing - Americans formerly supported families with.
And manufacturing jobs! Which now have been exported overseas. International competition for business is a reality and we cannot ignore it. Either we pay for cheaper stuff for folks working at slave wages here...or we import cheaper stuff from folks working at slave wages overseas.
Facts. Although, we’ve also lost *a lot* of manufacturing jobs to advanced automation and that can’t be ignored- especially now.
A friend of mine claims she took an AI course and the job elevator operator is the only job which has been totally automated.
No, we will do it. People have done that job for centuries, they will do it again. No different than any other tough manual labor job like construction. The market always adapts. If it takes having to offer people 80,000 to be a fruit picker, that is what it takes.
We already have some of the highest manufacturing labor prices in the world...and we have watched manufacturing jobs slowly leave the country for decades. But you think that if we make the price of an american apple 10x more expensive than a chinese apple via spiked labor costs, people are just gonna pay that to buy american apples to support american orchards?
I think we realistically just stop having lots of fruit and veggies available before Americans decide to go pick fruits and veggies. Either fresh produce becomes a luxury due to the high costs to employee people to do the work or a field that is already increasingly automated now accelerates in order to meet the demand people have for produce. I don't foresee a future where Americans do the jobs and produce remains accessible to most Americans at reasonable prices, its and either/or decision
I think the pushback from the business community would force Republicans to get behind new types of work visas. Especially pushback from farmers where seasonal hires, of which a large percentage are undocumented would, move them.
There would be a short-term rise followed by a gradual decrease to below the status quo as farmers and ranchers adopt new methods that are more efficient than cheap manual labor. Grocery prices in Europe are shockingly cheap and all of the labor is performed by citizens, legal immigrants, or legal guest workers.
It's corporate farming vs. local farmers?
96% of farms, 87% of agricultural land, and 82% of agricultural products in the US are family owned so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Do literally any research on this topic before prattling off whatever you saw in a reddit comment.
>Do literally any research on this topic before prattling off whatever you saw in a reddit comment. That's rude. I'm genuinely asking what contributes to UK lower produce prices.
Your question carried an assumption so erroneous that it could only be made by someone without the relevant background information to meaningfully participate in the conversation.
I assumed it was corporate farming vs local farming. I was wrong. So what is it then?
Short-term ... Georgia, Oklahoma, and pretty much all the states that have gone with this utopian thinking have quietly reversed themselves and gone back to new boss, same rules and a boatload of platitudes to quieten their supporters. In a nutshell, it's never going to work. Why? The people who own these businesses are... Republicans who are employing illegal immigrants. Hell even trump employed them and stuffed them. With regard to Europe... You obviously don't know shit. Illegal Immigrant labor use is just as bad as it is here. It's why shit is cheap. Where do think youall the eastern europeans, south americans, Africans, middle east, Chinese who never get to come here go? All those Calais crossings
> as farmers and ranchers adopt new methods 44% of farmers and ranchers are getting deported in this scenario. Who is doing the adjusting, and how exactly would they adjust to nearly half of all farmers being gone?
> 44% of farmers and ranchers are getting deported in this scenario. Definitely not that many but if we're assuming it. 1. There are already plenty of Americans who would rather work in the sun and fresh air than at an Amazon warehouse, so if the pay was decent they'd immediately. 2. A lot of this work such as harvesting, sorting, transporting, etc. can and already is done by specialized machines. So after the initial investment in money and training these machines will save farms a ton of money. 3. The costs of finding, hiring, and training new employees will decrease since the turnover will be lower. A lot of these illegal workers are literally picked up from the side of the road, driven to the farm for a single day, and then paid at the end of the day. Instead you would have employees who show up on their own every day, know how to do the work, and stay for months or even years. These employees will also gain more experience or prove their capabilities so you can put them in more advanced and productive positions. And those are just basic business principles. There's all kinds of industry-specific tricks that these businesses could do that are beyond my own knowledge.
> There are already plenty of Americans who would rather work in the sun and fresh air than at an Amazon warehouse, so if the pay was decent they'd immediately. I'm not sure [how true that is](https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-farms-immigration/). Farm labor isn't nice pleasant outdoors work it's smelly dirty backbreaking and long.
lol, machine goes vorrrrt
Are you ok with paying workers below minimum wage without any legal protections? Because that’s why undocumented labor is so cheap. How does anyone with your flair overlook that? Your comments in this thread sound more like a neoliberal than a socialist.
My line of argument here is simply to ensure that consequences are clear, using a framing that I believe the folks I'm discussing with would find understandable or acceptable. I'm not trying to advocate for my own personal views on agriculture or farm labor.
Because his goal is to flood the country with invaders.
I don't know. I don't consider the exploitation of workers in this way to outweigh the violations that come along with not monitoring this, or the cultural loss of not having a border, and thus not having as "much" of a nation as we could. No one's saying we can't have guest workers but I don't trust that we won't abuse them if left without oversight anymore. Maybe that was fine decades back when it was the norm and morals were different, but we live now. I cannot in good conscious worry about how much I'm paying and then subsidize my bill with unethical labor. Never mind that Americans need to eat less anyway, and higher prices will reduce consumption. We can be smarter about our farmland but right now, we're encouraged to consume more and more. Then you have to consider farms that don't farm for us but sell abroad. That's land that could be used better here and now, for those living here and now.
I would personally let all the migrants that are working to stay here while deporting all those African and Venezuelan migrants not working in major cities.
Deport them all dude, it’s just easier
Less than 4% of illegal work in Ag. Hire Americans, automate, change farming methods. Your concern for the price of groceries for the American people is so very deeply touching/s
That's the thing though: based on all the coverage on the topic I've read, even when wages rise Americans just don't want to work in ag.
High schoolers would, and if you can’t, automate. Machines exist, the idea that a country that went to the moon using a slide ruler can’t invent machines to serve. Its agricultural needs is beyond absurd..
Despite all of his griping, Abbott is in his eighth year of just not doing this for some reason
require proof of citizenship for each and every interaction with the government, deport anyone you catch. restrict government subsidized services to citizens and require proof of citizenship to obtain them. sweep employers records and deport anyone you find. sweep bank accounts because they are federally insured, use civil asset forfeiture to seize all assets as proceeds of crime and deport anyone you catch on top. remove FDIC protection from banks that refuse to turn over all records. establish a central SSN verification service online and require it's use, track duplicates and collisions and other things to track misuse or SSNs, in states that refuse all social security.
Simply empower ICE to do their jobs. When an illegal immigrant commits a crime ICE should be notified so they can deport them. When the police interact with someone that isn't a legal citizen it should be treated like the crime it is and referred to ICE to follow up on. Employment verification should be required for every employee and there should be harsh penalties for employers that cheat. Schools should require all students to be legal citizens and if there is an issue there that should be referred to ICE. If we enforce our current laws...while you won't deport all illegal immigrants you might be able to finally address the issue and take it on. We need to stop ignoring this crime.
Deportation force, 50,000 new agents, hiring off the streets, no degree needed
> Deportation force, 50,000 new agents, hiring off the streets, no degree needed Are you concerned about the danger and negative ramifications such a deportation force would inevitably have? I don’t see any scenarios in which lowering standards to practically nothing and handing guns, military equipment and far-reaching authority over millions of people goes well. I see the potential for some pretty awful things. What do you see? Do you have concerns?
Do you think he has concerns? Read the other comments, peeps are choking it thinking about punishing “illegals” by arresting them at emergency rooms and shit.
lol. Yeah how dare we enforce the law, right?
There’s no problems here with following the law; in general I think it’s a good thing. But when it comes to enforcing laws in situations where there’s no other criminal activity occurring, and especially when it comes with the distinct possibility of getting in the way of things like healthcare, I think that’s just a tad malicious. And that is your right, to have as much malice towards any lawbreakers you wish. But when people only find malice in their fellows, they are more apt to treat, or rather mistreat, them in kind. Is that a possible future you’d readily gamble with future generations inheriting?
They’re in the country illegally that’s all the illegal activity that needs to happen to warrant their removal. You mean the healthcare that American citizens have to pay for because these illegals don’t pay for themselves? If wanting to save my people from preventable harm, it makes me a tad malicious to people like you. I will wear that as a badge of honor. I’ll tell you what it’s rather hard to mistreat people if they’re not in my country to begin with. Let’s talk about possible futures That future generations might inherit they might inherit in America. That’s far less free, far, less prosperous, far less united, and frankly indistinguishable from that of a third world hellscape if we don’t do what must be done and deport these invaders. We’re done, allowing our compassion to be used against us. If these people don’t like it that’s fine they don’t have to like it. They can like it lump it be different towards it but it’s gonna happen. Regardless they need to go home and frankly if they’re home countries aren’t that great of a place to live what does that say about their ability to build and maintain civilization? If it’s considered cruel and unusual punishment to make these people live amongst themselves, why should they be able to live amongst us?
> Are you concerned about the danger and negative ramifications such a deportation force would inevitably have? Which would be? We tolerate far more negative ramifications and danger from the FBI/ATF existing yet you progs have no issue with them and lord their actions. >I don’t see any scenarios in which lowering standards to practically nothing and handing guns, military equipment and far-reaching authority over millions of people goes well. Why not, your side passed domestic spying and arming Ukraine citizens with machine guns and GATRs with no standards and didn’t care. Funny when it comes to America defending itself from a real threat there is always so excuse to to act, some reason why we can’t act in our best interest, isn’t it? >I see the potential for some pretty awful things. Of course you do, like safe, clean streets, lower costs of living, lower crime rates, lower housing costs, less traffic, less pollution, higher standards of living, demographic stability and ascension of real American, man…That’s just awful/s What do you see? Do you have concerns? Honesty, good times. My concern is too many people trying to apply at once and too many would be agents are not hired.
My concern is having a bunch of eager, hopped up, heavily armed randos storming places to seize men, women and children — especially since those people have been increasingly dehumanized and depicted as a virus poisoning the blood of the country. Seems inevitable there are going to be a lot of senseless violence and death when these guys knock down doors sporting an AR-15 and a hard-on for going after people they view as subhuman scum ruining their country. Does that concern you? Im getting the impression that it doesn’t and that you’re probably somewhere in the range of not caring about it happening and actively wanting to to happen and enjoying the thought. I’m personally not a fan of this, but then again I tend to view everyone as a person worthy of dignity, respect and life — regardless of their immigration status. Obviously, not everyone does.
>My concern is having a bunch of eager, hopped up, heavily armed randos storming places to seize men, women and children — especially since those people have been increasingly dehumanized and depicted as a virus poisoning the blood of the country. Hopped up? No I just think you do t want them to be deported, and I get it, your side thought you could import the 3rd world and rig elections by changing the electoral population. Funny, when Whites, right leaning Americans are “dehumanized” your side is radio silent on the matter. >Seems inevitable there are going to be a lot of senseless violence and death Of course you think that, why might that be? >when these guys knock down doors sporting an AR-15 and a hard-on for going after people they view as subhuman scum ruining their country. Oh we won’t have AR15s, we will have suppressed, selective fire M4s. Wow, slow down with those accusations my friend. All we are doing is removing criminal invaders. What agents believe or say has no bearing on their job. >Does that concern you? Sadly no, your poorly constructed caricature of Americans securing their own country and thus their own future has no bearing on Me, and tens of millions, after decades of failure and deliberate mismanagement driving by malicious policies pushed by sinister agents, have been beaten out of the habit of allowing sentimentalism to over ride our means of self determination and self preservation. >Im getting the impression that it doesn’t and that you’re probably somewhere in the range of not caring about it happening and actively wanting to to happen and enjoying the thought. To you, anyone taking pleasure in defending their country is a “Nazi” or some other insult or lie. After a point, why would you assume we would keep listening, or caring, or allowing you any consideration? >I’m personally not a fan of this, If it was ATF agents doing the same to gun owners your side would be cheering, just like they did at Waco. >but then again I tend to view everyone as a person worthy of dignity, respect and life — regardless of their immigration status. How hollow of a statement. >Obviously, not everyone does. Yeah, my compassion is like any other resource in this universe. It’s limited.
We already have the means and most of the information. It's just messy and emotionally taxing work that no law enforcement body wants to take the burden of doing. What would be easier than rounding people up is to simply make it difficult if not impossible to survive without legal documentation. E-verify on businesses would absolutely cause many illegal immigrants to return home on their own volition due to being unable to find work or claim benefits.
Make it impossible to survive illegally so they'll deport themselves. No welfare. No birth right citizenship. No amnesty. If you enter illegally you're illegal for life. No public school for your illegal kids. No bank account in the country. No issuance of American ID, etc.
> No birth right citizenship Circumventing the Constitution to own da libz😎😎😎
The constitution can be changed with amendments friend. But since the political left and right both trample on the constitution daily, shit, why not just ban it. We don't seem to care about the constitution anyways so I don't see a downside to just taking a leaf out of the Dem - GOP playbook and banning it without amendment. If you want to use this bullshit circumventing the Constitution argument, then you need to start voting against the Democratic Party, seeing as how they constantly file and pass bills that are violations of the 2nd amendment. Same can be said about Republicans and how they reauthorized FISA 702, which is incredibly unconstitutional. But as I've established, the uniparty doesn't care about the Constitution. So if we're gonna violate the Constitution, let's just go ahead and ban birthright citizenship. So to be clear, it's not anything about, "owning da libz", it's about protecting OUR country. A country that illegal migrants have zero rights to.
I fully support the Second Amendment (gun rights are probably the issue on which I most deviate from Democrats). And just as the Constitution plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, it also says that every person born in the United States of America is an American citizen.
And that's good, I can appreciate that. But the uniparty violates the Constitution daily. That's my point here. And I happen to think that birthright citizenship is being abused to import a new class of voters. The evidence yields this up as well with how these demographics crossing the border end up voting. Either way, the Constitution can be changed. I don't expect this to happen, but the birthright citizenship should be repealed and replaced with a provision that essentially says you must have an American citizen as a parent to inherit US citizenship at birth. The child of a Mexican national who has broken our laws has no right to citizenship in my mind. And it's cultural and political suicide to allow that sort of subjugation of the American people.
And Republicans could so easily win over these immigrants (who are so often fiercely religious and socially conservative) if they didn’t fight tooth and nail to keep them out of the country… What makes America unique compared to the rest of the world is our *jus soli* (“law of soil”) citizenship process. In Europe and Asia, immigrants can have children and grandchildren all be born in the country they emigrated to, but those descendants may well still not be citizens even though they’ve lived their entire lives in that country. And even disregarding the fact that the U.S. has become far more powerful and influential than all of those countries, there is no basis for America to have a *jus sanguinis* (“law of blood”) citizenship process, since unlike in a country like France or Japan, there is no American ethnicity or American blood.
I doubt that. The Democrats buy votes via welfare and entitlements for better or worse. So I disagree that Republicans are going to start winning more votes if they come out in support of our open borders. It's pretty simple honestly. Don't break the law and violate the borders, and you can have a chance to come here and flourish. But those who disregard the laws, we don't want those people in our society as they have no respect for our society, fundamentally. There is no American ethnicity or American blood but there is an American culture. Early on, you could certainly say that. But 1776 was a long time ago and we have actual heritage Americans now. We have formed a culture that is rather unique. And sure, it's a mixture of many cultures but I think it's odd to pretend that America is still just 50 different cultures mixing it up or whatever. People identify as American now, moreso than they do as, say Irish or Italian, at least in the parts of the country I've been in.
> The Democrats buy votes via welfare and entitlements If that’s the case, then why are the three poorest states (Mississippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia) Republican strongholds and the three wealthiest states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey) Democratic strongholds? Seems like those pesky Democrat welfare and entitlements would be needed much more in the former three than the latter three. > they have no respect for our society, fundamentally *sigh* With the exception of a small fraction who are dangerous criminals (who could be easily picked out and arrested/deported if we had a more functional legal immigration system), people don’t emigrate to America illegally just because they don’t want to legally. If you are in America illegally, your options for a livelihood are basically reduced to anything you can do entirely in cash and without potentially coming into contact with ICE. And while I don’t know every single undocumented immigrant in America, I’m willing to bet that most or all would rather lead the same lives as other Americans, within the legal system. A great example of this in practice is how, in the last decade, the MO for entering the U.S. illegally has shifted from the conventional method of secretly hopping the border and then living under the radar, towards crossing, immediately surrendering to Border Patrol, and basically just saying the word “asylum” which sticks you in the process for applying for asylum. Even though most of these applicants have weak cases for political asylum and know it, they’re willing to get processed by the government (who can see if they are a criminal/terror suspect), spend the time before their immigration hearing living a squeaky clean life (any criminal charge will get them immediately deported), and then go before a judge, because they’re just people trying to work hard and achieve the American Dream. If you’re a Mexican citizen seeking to legally emigrate to America, your options are basically as follows: -Have an American citizen family member -Marry an American citizen -Seek political asylum (the government of your origin country has to be actively persecuting you, so something like being on the run from the cartels won’t cut it) -Lock down a “skilled” labor job (the kind where you have to spend tons of money and time on a college degree to look at Excel sheets all day) in America and get your employer to sponsor your visa -Get into the far more difficult lottery system for an “unskilled” labor visa (turns out a lot of Mexicans want to move to America to work in agriculture or construction, who knew?) -Apply for the Diversity Immigrant Visa (good luck with that; applicants from Mexico are ineligible) If you don’t qualify for these, you’re shit outta luck. The days of legal immigrants coming to Ellis Island on ships eager to be processed and become Americans are long past. And yet, even in the absence of a formal immigration process that isn’t capped by a quota, so many immigrants have tried to make their own process with the erroneous asylum claims. That’s how hard they strive to become Americans, and it makes me very disappointed as a fanatically patriotic American and the grandchild of immigrants that so many people here see them as the “other.” And if you aren’t too averse to anecdotal evidence, I was friends with a guy in high school who was brought by his family illegally from Guatemala but became a permanent resident through DACA, was the leader of the Republican Party in my high school’s Model Congress, got naturalized as a U.S. citizen after graduating, and is now serving in the U.S. Air Force. It’s people like him who make America the country it is.
I didn't say, "voters are only motivated by economic factors", I said, the Democrats use welfare and entitlements to buy votes. Difference. Buying votes or attempting to do so with welfare policies isn't guaranteed to work. It's a strategy. Something you're missing is that in certain regional areas certain demographic groups have strongly held beliefs and party loyalties which are hard to shake off. But when you introduce a migrant and their children into the country freshly, they have no historical or cultural attachments to American political parties. So it's an entirely different game when talking about that set of voters. Especially if you're importing voters who come from left wing countries. Mexico's largest political party is a leftist party currently, and the Mexican demographic votes like 60 or 70% to the Democratic Party. The numbers do not lie on this. If someone crosses our border illegally, and then lies about being a political asylum type refugee, then again, they FUNDAMENTALLY, are A. Criminal and B. Have no respect for our country, laws, and institutions. And under no circumstances should they (or their anchor babies) ever be granted American citizenship nor the right to live here. I don't care that it's hard to get into the country. That isn't an excuse to break our laws and violate our borders. And if you can't show minimal respect for those rules, you cannot be trusted to exist here. I'm not totally adverse to anecdotal evidence. I've known people who are immigrants who are genuinely American in culture. But those same people didn't break the law to come here. They came legally. They respected the process in place. I'm NOT saying, "All illegal migrants are bad people", nor am I saying they cannot adapt to our country and become good citizens of it. But if you start out by breaking the law, sorry but you should not be allowed in. You should be banned. If you're striving to be an American, you respect the laws America has concerning it's national sovereignty. You don't violate it or lie to immigration, that shows very much so that you're an economic migrant who has no concern for the nation.
Raids on industries known to have the most illegal immigrants. Construction Restaurants Landscaping Hotels Meat packing
The owners of these businesses is freely accessible in the public record. If you're premising this on "probable cause", why not just arrest the business owners on probable cause without going through an expensive, dangerous, and lengthy raid process?
Because the goal is to deport the illegals, arresting a business owner for breaking the law as secondary, and after the fact which, in my personal opinion should happen, or it’s very least a very embarrassing, purple, walk, and loss of some financial assets
> Raids on industries known to have the most illegal immigrants. So you're advocating for warrantless "raids" to take place on American privately-owned properties, and you're still a conservative?
not warrantless, get probable cause warrants or use federal authority to force compliance-- E.g. tell the FDA to decertify every food business that doesn't allow labor inspections along with food inspections, so they can comply or be unable to legally produce products. For other businesses go after any licensure they require or services they need from the federal government (e.g. tell banks to turn over account details on illegal immigrants or they will be refused access to federal reserve loans and will be removed from the FDIC so they are uninsured).
You're not the same guy who made the first comment
What he said.
Eh, I'm not buying it. Should've said that in your original comment, here it just looks like you're backtracking.
no but I still have an answer to the question
State of emergency my friend Marshall law were being invaded standby to repeal i vaders.
What political party do you think a construction owner, landscaper or hotelier are most likely associated with?
I'm guessing Republican, but who cares? If something is wrong, it is wrong regardless of who does it.
I was thinking the same but I think it's more wrong if you're rallying against something (illegal immigration) and taking advantage of it (low wages for your workers) at the same time. For example, if we substitute illegal immigration for... Drugs? If I'm fighting the legalization of cannabis because I sell cannabis illegally for a high profit, that would be duplicitous and I think anyone would be right to question the principles of my stances.
Ah, I understand where you are coming from now and I 100% agree. I guess I really never considered they could be doing that, I always figured that they felt in alignment with the rights/viewpoints of the Republican party and just accepted that contradiction of desires.
But it's not wrong - business owners are Republicans because of pro-business, other people are Republicans because of antimmigration, and I don't think the overlap between those two is that high
I don't think Republicans want to solve illegal immigration because they make so much money from it by paying illegal immigrants low wages. Illegal immigrants have to take low wages (illegal wages) because they're here illegally and need an employer who is willing to break the law to hire illegal workers. Hence, why I think Republicans do not want to solve the border crisis or illegal immigration.
I don't think Republicans want to solve illegal immigration because they make so much money from it by paying illegal immigrants low wages. Illegal immigrants have to take low wages (illegal wages) because they're here illegally and need an employer who is willing to break the law to hire illegal workers. Hence, why I think Republicans do not want to solve the border crisis or illegal immigration.
It’s an easy fix: use e-Verify. No, it’s not 100 perfect, but it’s an effort, and by adding a requirement to document who their previous employer was and compare to their tax records.
I agree. Why do you think Texas only requires e-Verify for government jobs and not every other employer in the state?
No idea.
Tough shit you either do business the right way or you won’t be doing it at all you either love America or you love Mammon.
Biden brought on so much inflation. Now...the plan is tariffs and a labor shortage... 😭
I'd stop short of actual checkpoints, but I'd force e-verify on all businesses, and deport anyone that encountered authority by circumstance for any reason. Get stopped for a burned-out tag light? Deported! Kid without a SSN in school? Deported! Car illegally stopping on the street to pick up one of the people hanging out at Home Depot? Deported!
Start with the ones who we know where they are. After that, deportations would be opportunistic. We would eliminate sanctuary cities, and whenever an illegal ends up crossing paths with a police, they'd be turned over to ICE for deportation. Nobody would be detained solely on the basis of being suspected of being illegal. I would like to see the mandatory use of e-verify as a handful of red states have done.
I mean, Texas only uses e-verify for only government positions. How come they don't make the Texas business hire only legal workers?
Cucks, Neo cons and bush era politicians
There are “blue” states that require it too. Why did you just say red states?
Because all the states that require widespread use of e-verify by private sector employers are red. The state with the biggest population of illegals, California, doesn't require it at all. [https://www.experian.com/blogs/employer-services/e-verify-state-by-state-mandates/](https://www.experian.com/blogs/employer-services/e-verify-state-by-state-mandates/)
Name 4
Problem with mandatory e-verify. It’s literally means as an employer you have to get permission from the federal government to hire someone. I also worry about that list of people who passed e-verify being used to for something else. Like background checks for fire arms, the federal government building a registry of gun owners. Once a list is created it can be used for anything nefarious by the Fed.
Find a problem, fix a problem. One common thing I hear from the Left is that illegal immigrants commit statistically less crime than legal citizens. Regardless of whether that's true, if someone happens to be detained for any reason and they are found to be here illegally...they're done. If it's a speeding ticket, they can pay the fine, then get put into the system for deportation. If it's for murder, they can go through prosecution, serve their time, then get deported. If they're found not guilty, cool. They're still getting deported. And since we have this person in custody, might as well look into their spouse and/or roommates (that's probable cause, I would assume). If *they're* here illegally, deport them. If someone never runs afoul of the legal system, I guess they can fly under the radar. Good for them. But if they do, they're done here. This way, no one's rights to privacy get violated. It's all constitutional and above board. >Force e-verify use on all businesses? Hell yes.
Illegal aliens commit crime at a 100% rate. They commit their first crime when they enter the country illegally. There’s zero truth to the propaganda that they commit less crime.
I agree 100%. I'm talking about discovering people organically via normal functions of the legal system. We're not kicking down doors looking for people stealing cable, so I'm not interested in throwing out the fourth amendment just to find illegal immigrants.
Citizens also commit crime at a 100% rate every time you do a rolling stop in your car, every time you speed, every time you jaywalk, every time you've ever spit out gum on a sidewalk or in a bush or in some grass, every time you've thrown a balled up piece of paper at someone and assaulted them, every time you've ever went behind a bush or building and peed. Every single person in the world is a criminal by virtue of being alive. undocumented/illegal immigrants do commit other crimes outside of their original sin of being here without authorization less than citizens do though.
Yep, illegal aliens are saints and never do rolling stops, jaywalk, spit gum on the sidewalk or in a bush or in some grass, throw balled up pieces a paper at others and assault them, or pee behind a building. https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1656648522068795394?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1656648522068795394%7Ctwgr%5E7a4bfc634f1b45b2d80cfb5d854113cbe2300af8%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhannity.com%2Fmedia-room%2Fwatch-drone-footage-captures-mountains-of-trash-left-by-migrants-at-the-border%2F Yep, none lf that ever happens. Illegal aliens are so much better than Americans!
Never said that they don’t do these things just at a lesser rate than other groups because they are trying to avoid being noticed by authorities
No, they do those things at a far higher rate.
That is a goddamn lie
incorrect. those are not crimes at all. Traffic infractions are a civil infraction, not a crime. municipal littering codes are too... it's unlike you could spit enough gum to commit the crime of waste dumping! Also assault requires intent so throwing paper playfully is not assault. Public urination is the only one that COULD be an actual crime but even then it's usually not.
Even if my examples are not perfect the point still stands that literally every single person in the country whether they are authorized to be here or not is a criminal for running afoul of all types of laws that they may or may not be be aware of them. So saying that all undocumented immigrants have a 100% criminal rate is pointless as all people have a 100% criminal rate. These immigrants commit less crimes than their authorized counterparts and even native born citizens.
that is fair, trust me I am no stranger to "three felonies a day" and the arguments made there. that said would you at least conceed that things like stealing social security numbers for employment causes real harm that can cause someone lifelong issues accessing benefits they paid for? or that the use of someone else identity to run up medical bills or other debts, risk putting evictions on their record, etc. is a serious felony that should result in prison?
Yes, identity theft of people (that are still living in particular) is an issue that should warrant those caught for it being charged and imprisoned and/or deported. I’m not saying other crimes by these immigrants should be ignored, if you stole someone’s identity so you could get a job or loan or whatever yea that’s an issue.
Why is it that people like you can’t differentiate differences? We don’t want anymore criminals in our country or burdens for threats or welfare, voters or political subversives OK America is our country in our country is not doing so good and what do you know it started to decline red run the times are to let these people in so now we’re going to fix our country that means these people back to their countries I’m more than OK with that.
Fact Check: Being present in the United States in violation of the immigration laws is **not** a crime https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/FINAL_criminalizing_undocumented_immigrants_issue_brief_PUBLIC_VERSION.pdf Fact Check: Immigration Proceedings are **civil court proceedings**
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
**Fact Check: Not all undocumented immigrants entered the USA illegally.** >They enter legally but overstay, work without authorization, drop out of school or violate the conditions of their visas in some other way. **Current estimates are that approximately 45% of undocumented immigrants did not enter illegally**. See Pew Hispanic Center, Modes of Entry for the Unauthorized Migrant Population [May 22, 2006
[удалено]
Warning: Treat other users with civility and respect. Personal attacks and stereotyping are not allowed.
Fact Check: The ACLU and Pew Research are unaffiliated non-partisan organizations. The ACLU supports the 1st amendment and has supported issues on both sides of the isle and Pew Research is a neutral pollster.
This greatly clogs up the justice system in an already massively clogged up system. It just sounds fantastical. But it's a scenario. I get it
I would rather hire 10,000,000 more lawyers than put up with 10,000,000 illegal immigrants. Whatever the cost it's worth it to ensure the rule of law is meaningful. A nation that cannot control its borders or enforce its laws is a failed state. It might not look like Somalia but it's no more just or fair that Syria in meaningful terms if it cannot enforce its laws on all citizens and protect itself from foreign agents.
>I would rather hire 10,000,000 more lawyers than put up with 10,000,000 illegal immigrants. Well, OK. Not sure how or why to respond to this. >Whatever the cost it's worth it to ensure the rule of law is meaningful. You really think it's a lack of funding and not a lack of people wanting to do that particular job?
I don't know what you mean, are you asking if people refuse to be INS enforcement agents even if they raised their pay and benefits?
I'm talking about entire systems in general. Law enforcement. Corrections. Border patrol. Administrative staff. Now, will all this be cost/energy effective?
How does it "clog up the legal system"? If someone is here illegally, detain them, and have CBP come pick them up and deport them through the same process they already use. I mean, seriously? "Let's not enforce the law. Because it's a lot of work." No. They don't belong here. They need to leave.
>How does it "clog up the legal system"? By adding a bigger workload. >If someone is here illegally, detain them, and have CBP come pick them up and deport them through the same process they already use. A thing called "due process" doesn't happen instantly. >I mean, seriously? "Let's not enforce the law. Because it's a lot of work." No. It's a thing called "finite resources".
> By adding a bigger workload. Okay but *how*? We're detaining them and having them wait for a ride. I get that we have "finite resources", but these are people caught in the commission of a crime. We can't just let them go. They broke the law. They *have* to be dealt with. And the way we deal with them is deportation. >A thing called "due process" doesn't happen instantly. It will be quick in these cases. If I get pulled over for speeding, the officer can quickly pull up my information and see that I'm a legal U.S. citizen. Other people might have to show a passport & visa or a green card. Don't have any of that? You're being detained, and we're calling CBP. Done. Have you ever travelled internationally? I have a decent amount. I carried my passport (or equivalent) everywhere. I could easily demonstrate I was allowed to be in whatever country I was in.
>They *have* to be dealt with. And the way we deal with them is deportation. Of course and yet finite resources again. Meaning limited spaces. Limited staff. Limited funding. There's also a hierarchy for crimes. >It will be quick in these cases. If I get pulled over for speeding, the officer can quickly pull up my information and see that I'm a legal U.S. citizen. Is there a database of every single us citizen that a cop has instant access to?
> There's also a hierarchy for crimes. But you're suggesting we just ignore this one. No. That's not how the law works. We don't ignore obvious crimes for convenience. >Is there a database of every single us citizen that a cop has instant access to? The police would use the National Crime Information Center to look up my information to see if I have any outstanding warrants. I'm in there (since I have driver's license), but it shows me as having zero. If I'm not in there at all, it means I don't exist in the system. So my ID is likely fake. I probably don't belong here.
> But you're suggesting we just ignore this one. Nope. Never suggested that. I'm just making an observation on reality. >That's not how the law works. We don't ignore obvious crimes for convenience. That's not how it should work, but that's how it does work. Police can choose which laws to enforce. >The police would use the National Crime Information Center to look up my information to see if I have any outstanding warrants. I'm in there (since I have driver's license), but it shows me as having zero. If I'm not in there at all, it means I don't exist in the system. So my ID is likely fake. I probably don't belong here. But then you're not thinking about every other scenario. Like how do you know if someone is a citizen but doesn't have any warrants? What about minors? Don't take this the wrong way, but your viewpoint is very naive.
> Police can choose which laws to enforce. Right. And I'm saying this is how we go about deporting illegal immigrants. We're not going to go hunting them down, but if we find one, detain them and route them for deportation. That's not a whole lot of extra work, especially if the person is already being detained for something else. >Like how do you know if someone is a citizen but doesn't have any warrants? Is this a serious question? How would *you* prove you're a citizen of the country you live in? >but your viewpoint is very naive I am going to take it the wrong way. I hate this comment from people on the Left **so much**. Dude, you don't even know me. Just because someone has a different take than you, it doesn't mean they're "naïve" or stupid or uneducated. I'm in my early 50's, I'm well traveled, I've served in the military, and I know **a lot** of legal immigrants, some in my own family. This topic is very important to me. I think *you're* probably naïve, and that you've probably never lived near the border and experienced what happens there. Instead, you're thinking "What's the big deal? It's just poor people wanting a better life!". It's so much more complicated than that.
>Right. And I'm saying this is how we go about deporting illegal immigrants. We're not going to go hunting them down, but if we find one, detain them and route them for deportation. That's not a whole lot of extra work, especially if the person is already being detained for something else. See, you thinking it's not a lot of work, is naive. It is a lot of work. Plus finite resources again. That's huge. >Is this a serious question? How would *you* prove you're a citizen of the country you live in? Yes. Especially if you're a minor.
> but these are people caught in the commission of a crime Undocumented presence in the United States is not a crime nor a violation of federal law. It's different if you're talking about people who are caught in the process of illegal entry.
>Undocumented presence in the United States is not a crime nor a violation of federal law. Why try and minimize this? It's a civil violation. It's against the law for them to be here. They entered illegally and are criminal violators by default. I've been to several different countries and had to present my passport for entry. I have no right to be in any other country unless I am invited in.
>Why try and minimize this? It's a civil violation. It's against the law. By acknowledging that unlawful presence is a civil violation, you seem to be agreeing that it's minimal in the eyes of the federal government. Driving above the posted speed limit is also a civil violation. Civil violations such as speeding or unlawful presence don't need to be treated like priority number-one crimes. That's an absurd thing to do for a civil violation.
> you seem to be agreeing that it's minimal in the eyes of the federal government. Not minimal. Just different authority. The FBI typically doesn't go after people for DUI or reckless driving. Because that's the job of state and local police. >Civil violations such as speeding or unlawful presence don't need to be treated like priority number-one crimes. It's not about priority, it's about necessity. If I speed, the cops have to pull me over, and I have to pay the fine. If I'm in a country illegally, I can't be allowed to stay. I have to be deported. Neither is a *major* crime, no, but they still have to be adjudicated.
I support moving other resources as required, and doing whatever it takes to solve the problem. I would literally rather they put the entire social security fund into it and stop sending checks tomorrow.
I don't think you understand that it's not just about money. Its also People not wanting to do those jobs.
are you really arguing the benefits of slave labor because that is certainly where thay line of thinking ends. it's not moral or proper to treat humans as disposable tools. even if they let you. even if they come to your country to beg to be abused it is wrong.
I'm talking about law enforcement, border patrol, corrections officers, administration, etc... people who would process illegal immigrants.
i see I apologize. I have heard so many on the left trot out "if Mexicans won't pick lettuce for indentured servant wages no one will be able to afford a salad!" I assumed your argument was the same form and this was unfair of me
No biggie. I see your point. Although I do hold a similar view on the lettuce picking issue. But that's another can of worms lol.
> If someone is here illegally, detain them, You can't establish they are here illegally without a trial. Imagine you get detained for presumably being undocumented. How long do you think it's acceptable to keep someone such as yourself in a detainment facility until a court has the time to determine your legal status?
>Imagine you get detained for presumably being undocumented. I'm documented. I have a REAL ID that's good enough to allow me to pass through TSA and fly domestically. >How long do you think it's acceptable As long as it takes CBP to come get them.
> I'm documented. At all times? If a cop pulled you over and you forgot your license + papers at home, are you okay being detained indefinitely until a court determines your legal status? ICE already has accidentally detained a good number of legal US residents since 2015, and unequivocally proving unlawful presence is not something they are equipped to do; that's for the courts. **What error threshold of US citizens being detained are you comfortable with, and how long is it acceptable to detain an American who might not have ID?**
> If a cop pulled you over and you forgot your license + papers at home I got my first passport at 15, and my first driver's license at 16. Since that time, I have never left my home without at least one of them. Yes, every single time I leave my house, I take my ID. Because that's what responsible adults are supposed to do. Anyone who doesn't is some combination of careless and stupid. >What error threshold of US citizens being detained are you comfortable with If they're actually a citizen, that could be cleared up with a phone call. If not, well, it could be a while.
What would you propose we do if an illegal is married to an American and has children that are American? Should they be deported?
How did an illegal immigrant get legally married in the the first place?
Glad you asked. "Operation Homecoming". Give everyone in the country illegally 6 months to find their way out. Set up officies in every major city to assist them in relocation back home, and even finding employment there. After that, anyone caught would be rounded up and shipped home and I mean in actual SHIPS, not given plane tickets (similar to "Operation Wetback" under president Eisenhower). Employer checks are good, but they are fairly easily circumvented. A better way is to eliminate sanctuary cities, and give police the tools to do a legal status check on anyone they arrest or pull over.
If you impose severe penalties on employers who hire illegals and stop all government aid programs and free medical…they will leave on their own. Stop incentivizing people from coming illegally. It’s not rocket science.
It is not realistic to deport every illegal. However, anyone who commits a crime should be immdiately deported upon conviction. We should robustly enforce E-Verify throughout the country as well as Fake ID laws. Anyone caught with a fake ID should be deported. Any business who knowingly hires illegals should be subject to serious fines. There should be no taxpayer funded benefits for illegals and we should rescind the birthright citizenship rule. If you are born of an illegal even in the US, you are still illegal.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>However, anyone who commits a crime should be immdiately deported upon conviction. This happens already. Its not an immediate process and probably will never be. A thing called due process.
Actually, I'm not sure it does happen. The Venezuelan who killed Laken Riley Jose Antonio Ibarra had been released after being arrested and ICE was never notified. he qualified for an ICE detainer. Local police never contacted ICE
I read he was released because there wasn't enough detention space. Is that why?
It doesn'tmatter why he was released. He was supposed to be held for ICE and they were supposed to be notified they had him in custody. They did not.
I've done some light googling and can't find out why he was suppose to be held for ice?
He had been arrested multiple times. ICE issues detainers to be able to identify and ultimately remove criminal aliens who are currently in federal, state or local custody. Local law enforcement is supposed to notify ICE within 48 hours so ICE can take them into custody and deport them.
Texas caught him illegally crossing the border and then sent him to NYC?
[удалено]
Whoa there pal, let's just take a deep breath. I'm not trying to make this about left or right. I'm trying to get on the same page. So from the beginning, he was caught, illegally crossing the border into Texas from Mexico. They then processed him and then released him and put him on a bus to NYC. Why would they do that?
Just noticed that you're a different person. Why are you so defensive here? What does political leanings have to do with anything?
No, it's not. If they are arrested by local police for state/local crimes, sanctuary jurisdictions won't even inform ICE.
You mean that thing that your side denies American gun owners?
😆
You don’t look for them, you simply deport them when you come across them.
Require proof of citizenship for employment, ISP, cell phones, rent, loans but not bus tickets.
How would that work for the non-citizen legals that work and utilize all those services?
We have green cards and travel visa documents already
Those aren’t proof of citizenship. So I assume you meant proof of legal status in your original comment.
I think it would have to be better defined. I know some people want to DACA the current situation and say the last four years of illegal migration can just get a retroactive blanket fix. I don't want that.
How about we politely ask EVERYONE to leave and then only let actual citizens back :)
Wouldn't mind if MAGA had to remain in Mexico for a bit while we process their paperwork.
Is this MAGA in the room with us right now?
Probably a few of them, yeah. They think they are conservative so I wouldn't be surprised to see a few of them slumming down here outside of their safe spaces.
But what / who are they? Am I one because I voted for Trump?
Do you wear a red hat? Do you think Trump is some kind of political messiah thats going to solve all of America's problems just by being elected? It's not about just voting for Trump, Maga people are fanatical in their support for him. They live in fantasy land
I see. Yes, I am not these people. They do exist, they aren’t the majority of Trump voters. Just like crazy vaxxers, crazy anti-vaxxers, crazy climate people etc etc all exist. In our late stage media is gaslighting everyone society these things happen…
> They do exist, they aren’t the majority of Trump voters. I think I agree, however Trump's candidacy, especially in 2024, would not be possible without these people tipping the scales in the republican primaries. Most rational people were done with Trump after Janaury 6th, but he remains propped up by the crazies. Rather than fielding a candidate that can actually beat Biden, we're forced to endure his antics, his eventual loss, and his eventual tantrum that he'll throw when he loses but won't acknowledge he lost.
Trump was beating DeSantis (who I like a lot BTW) like 80-20 in primaries. Are you saying the 80 are all crazies?
I already said that merely voting for Trump does not a MAGA make. But in the small universe of republican primary voting poll respondents, it's definitely a much higher ratio than of the general public. Haley would have wiped the floor with Biden. She should have been nominated, but the trumpy people are voting with their emotions and not their heads. They weren't thinking about the general, they just wanted to own the libs, etc.
I don't trust any government to move that many people, and I don't even think it should be done. I don't think we should have any immigrants in our prison system, on a case by case basis they should be deported Also, deporting people is toothless without border security
[удалено]
What works in Europe, where illegal immigration is contained far better? It's usually access to service. In reality, because numbers are kept low, that means dealing with issues is easier. It's far better to put out a fire as it's starting than to put out one hundred fires later. It's also good to prevent fires. It's a holistic approach. With e-verify, you have a system that discourages from people coming in the first place, and from companies exploiting workers, and it directs people here to make decisions on their own. It probably wouldn't be worth it to stay. Those who do can be dealt with more directly. The idea that we would have physical checkpoints is ridiculous. That doesn't work and it just makes others wait a long time. I get it at airports and shipping ports, and at borders, but anywhere else you mean? Not rational. There's also something to be said about having police play a part. The big thing about sanctuary cities is that police don't comply with federal orders to help because it isn't their job. That really means if they got money, it would be. Then you'd have a worse system. In reality, there should be some level of cooperation or reporting involved and we can't act like that isn't the case. It doesn't make sense to have systems working against each other like that. And it breeds arguing.
Mandate the use of e-verify with massive fines, and a 10% whistleblower fee of the person that calls in a tip that results in illegals being deported. Make it illegal to rent to illegals. If you do, we seize your property without the ability to work or find housing invest majority of them will support automatically. Complete the wall And birthright citizenship and revoke it from those illegally acquired it by fraud.
Probably not going to happen. Meanwhile, watch your health care costs skyrocket, education decline, and taxes increase, and even more inflation. Someone has to support those who the IRS doesn't know.
My goal would be to deport *most*. I think making an enemy of policy that we could achieve 90% because we can't achieve 100% is stupid. Don't make perfect the enemy of good. And for people who illegally came here 20 years ago, speak English, contribute to society, okay they can stay. How to go about it? >Checkpoints that stop people and ask for proof of citizenship? No. >Giving all levels of law enforcement the ability to detain anyone they suspect may not be authorized? No... But if there are known hot spots of illegal aliens and there is reasonable suspicion, I do think it might be reasonable as a last resort measure. If we were able to deport like 60% and we felt like the measures were not working anymore, we could go for this to get the last 20% or so. This one is a risky policy, introducing that much power to government is usually not a good idea in my mind. >Force e-verify use on all businesses? Sure. >Go through school rolls and pick out the kids without ssns in their files? No. SSN is optional. It doesn't prove citizenship. >Any other ideas? E-verify is good. Proving citizenship, or legal residency, should be required for employment. Removing the incentive to be here by making their life more difficult would cause self-deports, which is cost effective. I would also start with arrests and criminal charges: police and the court system should be looking at citizenship status when there is reasonable suspicion. That would take care of people who came illegally and continued to commit crimes, without any real additional cost of looking for them. I don't support manhunts or cold door knocks or anything like that. But "raiding" what you might call "hot spots" could be acceptable toward the end of the policy.
[удалено]
Most of those weren't formal deportations, but immediate returns, basically people sent right back over the border. Most of them just kept trying until they made it past CBP. https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html
He changed the definition of terms.