66 ms·

> creating a self-reproducing 2nd class citizen population I'm pretty sure that the children of non-citizens would just be deported along with their parents.

pandaman 9y ago
Some would be but, judging from the past experience, the US can not deport illegals en masse. E.g. they do not even track visa overstays ATM [1] least somebody who entered the country illegally without any paper trace whatsoever. And don't forget the the post I've replied to is arguing for open borders so deportation becomes just a minor inconvenience of the government taking you to the border and you having to come back. 1. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-56-May17_0.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-...
- slang800 9y ago
  > the US can not deport illegals en masse Are we unable to, or do we choose not to? It's not like we're lacking in transportation infrastructure or the ability to track who is or is not a citizen. In most cases we wouldn't even need to physically remove them. Just preventing non-citizens from working or collecting welfare should cause self-deportation. > they do not even track visa overstays ATM Is there some technical reason that prevents them from doing that, or is it just political opposition?
  - pandaman 9y ago
    It is, of course, a political issue. The Federal government has little power inside the country (e.g. see how several states have open trade in drugs, which the USFG proclaimed illegal) and states, who hold most of the interior power, are very incentivised to have illegals since most of welfare comes from the Fed while the state's own power is determined chiefly by its population number so a state has a lot of upside and almost no downside by growing its population through illegal immigration. I'd imagine, in a hypothetical timeline where the 14th amendment could be repelled, the political balance is very different from the current one and the laws enabling the current situation could be changed just as well. However in the real world even the 14th repeal is highly unlikely.
    - slang800 9y ago
      > The Federal government has little power inside the country The Fed has the final say on every matter. Read the supremacy clause (article 6, clause 2, in the constitution). States that say "weed is legal" are only "getting away" with that because enforcement of the federal law on that matter is unpopular and probably a waste of time. It's a similar case with "sanctuary cities", although ICE is starting to operate in those. Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that.
      - pandaman 9y ago
        >The Fed has the final say on every matter. Not on every matter but the matter which is purview of the Fed. I.e. on the matters, which the Constitution gives to the Fed. It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause but at the end the Fed's interior power is limited by design. Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. So even with the immigration, which is in purview of Fed, we have 10s of millions of illegals (the exact number is not even known, think about it for a second) still in the country because states prevent the enforcement. >Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that. Exactly. See if it will ever pass. And if it passed - see a multi-decade legal battle waged by states to kill it in courts. The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. Then the states will become interested not only in the quantity but also the quality of their population. Though the states are going to fight it even harder than the direct immigration enforcement IMHO.
        slang800 9y ago
        > It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause... Yeah, and there's no limit on how far it can be stretched. States only have control over what the Fed isn't already in charge of. > Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country. > Exactly. See if it will ever pass. I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House. > The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. I'm sure that would be a good start, since those costs would be reflected in, and limited by, state-level taxes. However, that alone doesn't deal with people hiring illegals and the impact that has on the wages of citizens, or crime by illegals. At some point, enforcement is required.

pandaman 9y ago

Some would be but, judging from the past experience, the US can not deport illegals en masse. E.g. they do not even track visa overstays ATM [1] least somebody who entered the country illegally without any paper trace whatsoever. And don't forget the the post I've replied to is arguing for open borders so deportation becomes just a minor inconvenience of the government taking you to the border and you having to come back. 1. https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-56-May17_0.pdf https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-...

slang800 9y ago
> the US can not deport illegals en masse Are we unable to, or do we choose not to? It's not like we're lacking in transportation infrastructure or the ability to track who is or is not a citizen. In most cases we wouldn't even need to physically remove them. Just preventing non-citizens from working or collecting welfare should cause self-deportation. > they do not even track visa overstays ATM Is there some technical reason that prevents them from doing that, or is it just political opposition?
- pandaman 9y ago
  It is, of course, a political issue. The Federal government has little power inside the country (e.g. see how several states have open trade in drugs, which the USFG proclaimed illegal) and states, who hold most of the interior power, are very incentivised to have illegals since most of welfare comes from the Fed while the state's own power is determined chiefly by its population number so a state has a lot of upside and almost no downside by growing its population through illegal immigration. I'd imagine, in a hypothetical timeline where the 14th amendment could be repelled, the political balance is very different from the current one and the laws enabling the current situation could be changed just as well. However in the real world even the 14th repeal is highly unlikely.
  - slang800 9y ago
    > The Federal government has little power inside the country The Fed has the final say on every matter. Read the supremacy clause (article 6, clause 2, in the constitution). States that say "weed is legal" are only "getting away" with that because enforcement of the federal law on that matter is unpopular and probably a waste of time. It's a similar case with "sanctuary cities", although ICE is starting to operate in those. Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that.
    - pandaman 9y ago
      >The Fed has the final say on every matter. Not on every matter but the matter which is purview of the Fed. I.e. on the matters, which the Constitution gives to the Fed. It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause but at the end the Fed's interior power is limited by design. Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. So even with the immigration, which is in purview of Fed, we have 10s of millions of illegals (the exact number is not even known, think about it for a second) still in the country because states prevent the enforcement. >Beyond just technical authority granted by the constitution, you have to remember that the Fed controls around a third of state budgets through various forms of federal aid, meaning they can withhold funding... See Kate's Law for an example of that. Exactly. See if it will ever pass. And if it passed - see a multi-decade legal battle waged by states to kill it in courts. The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. Then the states will become interested not only in the quantity but also the quality of their population. Though the states are going to fight it even harder than the direct immigration enforcement IMHO.
      - slang800 9y ago
        > It's been stretched quite far through the commerce clause... Yeah, and there's no limit on how far it can be stretched. States only have control over what the Fed isn't already in charge of. > Practically it does not matter since the Fed has to rely on the states to enforce the law. What? ICE and Homeland Security are federal programs. Cooperation with local authorities is great, but state authorities aren't the ones removing people from the country. > Exactly. See if it will ever pass. I don't know enough to say what states can do to demand funding through the court system, but it passed in the House. > The only practical solution I see is to shift welfare to the state level. I'm sure that would be a good start, since those costs would be reflected in, and limited by, state-level taxes. However, that alone doesn't deal with people hiring illegals and the impact that has on the wages of citizens, or crime by illegals. At some point, enforcement is required.