I think a lot of people believe that there ought to be a statute of limitations on immigration; if you've been peacefully living and working in the country for many years, what's the actual public purpose of deporting someone? Including breaking up a family?
> Immigration is arguably even more important to enforce in this manner because of the clear-cut legal alternative.
We're talking about an immigration policy that is now rounding people up at their legal immigration appointments. This is not about maintaining a legal alternative, and to argue that it is feels disingenuous.
Under expedited removal, an established legal process, these undocumented immigrants are being deported, and are free to pursue their asylum claim in the meantime.
It’s disingenuous to argue that they have any more right to be here than any other undocumented immigrant, just because they happened to be detained at a courthouse.
This is because employers are generally compliant with law enforcement requests. I don't think you're making a point there - if the employers are breaking laws they will also get punished and if they resist persistently then there will be violence.
He's talking about tear gassings and people being dragged away though. Have employers even formed a mob to assert their right to commit wage theft? That seems like it'd be a wildly rare event but a prerequisite to a tear gassing. I assume it must have happened at least once but I can't recall an example. Dragging them to a foreign prison isn't really a productive way to deal with wage theft. They get dragged to local prisons if they commit crimes though.
If the point is that employers get a trial and that is unfair then there might be something there, but the point isn't being expressed very clearly.
The employers cast votes, illegals do not, seems like an easy calculus. Arrest the illegals to win the immigrant vote.
Rationally someone on HN is not going to want to understand this because it is not in their interest to understand it, because they benefit from illegal immigrants more than they don't.
And that's why they simply flagged my very valid point, no matter that it is well into the + and follows HN rules.
Yes exactly. For example about half my family is naturalized and the other half are jus soli citizens.
The naturalized half, most of who don't have degrees and often tell me tales of their coworkers getting deported, are fiercely pro Trump's immigration policies.
