3 ms·

> What is the policy and vision of those who oppose any deportation of illegal immigrants The United States has a hilariously complicated historical relationsh

> What is the policy and vision of those who oppose any deportation of illegal immigrants The United States has a hilariously complicated historical relationship with immigrants. * They are constantly the scapegoat of economic hardship, for one. * We pendulum back and forth over the decades and even centuries on "immigrants good" and "immigrants" bad[0] * In our regular swinging back and forth; and *ESPECIALLY* regarding people who were children when they came to the States, we have special-cased and threw under the rug literal millions of people without creating robust systems in place for the now 40-, 50- or 60-year old people who have literally built lives here that were brought over by their parents at ages 2... 3... etc. For those people especially, it's not a "go back to where you came from" sort of easy (though rude) statement. They have no where else. They lived here their whole lives and we've swept them under the rug. It is a national failing on our part. * We regularly and randomly grant clemency to various illegal immigrants that further perpetuates the cycle of increasing our numbers of legally dubious presences of people in the US. ALL OF THIS creates huge and complicated situations in the current political climate where we can't give naturalization/citizenship/whatever to these multiple millions of people because it would be rude or unfair or something. Long story short, the United States ignores our real immigration situation; and, has for so, so, so long that not a single solution to it outside of pure clemency will result in anything but destroyed lives; and while some people may say (ignoring ALL the logistic ridiculousness / literal genocide that it may cost) "it's a bandaid we need to rip off" and ruin the lives of the 10s of millions of people we would shove back and the 100s of millions or more people that would be directly impacted by their deportation, others remember that each of those 10s of millions of people are a person with lives and the value inherent in every person, and should be treated as such. Addendum: to answer the question directly, I would argue: immediate green-card status or similar to all Latin American individuals who have stayed here long term under DACA or any of the other previous status-dubious systems we've placed them under and either considering their existing time as time spent for citizenship purposes, or immediately starting their "Time in US" potential citizenship timeline. We can choose to close the borders again later. I care less about that than I do the many that are already here in their state of limbo. [0] To be very clear, when politicians, etc, say immigrants, in almost every circumstance, it's code for Latin American immigrants. If someone says something along the lines of "Oh, I immigrated from Ireland" or "my family is German", there's an internal thought from many Americans of "Oh, we're not talking about you" or "oh, but you came here legally", even if most illegal immigrants are Visa overstays.

borroka 2y ago
This comment would be perfect in the mouth of an ordinary politician, there is this, there is this other, we are ruining lives, etc. Now, this is a comment on a forum, but I was asking, what is the policy/vision, and I can never get a straight answer. Let's say that in the last few years 5 million (maybe, who knows) people have entered the United States illegally, and as I see it, that is irresponsible, illegal, immoral. Now, if you propose to do something about this situation, which would ordinarily be “you are illegal, you have to go back and apply through the regular channels,” the charade of families who have been here for 50 years and are undocumented begins. Smoke, fog, “other things are more important.” The inevitable history lesson, Ellis Island, what about the Italian mafia? All nonsense. I still cannot figure out from those in favor of (illegal) immigration a vision or policy. The only transparent ones are those who say that because some of these immigrants are paid much less than citizens or legal immigrants for certain jobs, it benefits "the economy" to have them here. Everyone else just presents their mood affiliation.
- t-writescode 2y ago
  I don't know of many/anyone that's in favor of illegal immigration. Most people, I would argue, would say "if you just came across the border illegally, you should be sent back". So there really __isn't__ an argument there, as far as I know, outside of the position that we should have a fully open border, which I believe is not a mainstream position. *But*, that is *not* what people are actually talking about when they're talking illegal immigration. They're talking about the people who are already here, the regular scapegoats, so any conversation that talks about illegal immigration is going to necessarily talk about the people that have stayed here, and it's a smoke-screen for harming those individuals. Funny, a lot of the people complaining about illegal immigration aren't even talking about illegal immigrants, but are scapegoating, again, the people on agricultural visas, etc.
  - borroka 2y ago
    But this whole conversation could be much more interesting if, instead of presenting a critical analysis of the language used by pro- or anti-immigration groups, some policies were discussed. For example, one might say that undocumented people with no criminal records who have been here for more than x years, would be given documents. All the others will be deported. Then, one might discuss the merits of x years instead of z years, but it would be a starting point. "I don't know of many/anyone that's in favor of illegal immigration" -- all those who are against deporting illegals, support illegal immigration. One cannot say with a straight face, well, I am of course against illegal immigration, but since they are already here..."Sure, I am against homicides but since the guy is already dead..."

borroka 2y ago

This comment would be perfect in the mouth of an ordinary politician, there is this, there is this other, we are ruining lives, etc. Now, this is a comment on a forum, but I was asking, what is the policy/vision, and I can never get a straight answer. Let's say that in the last few years 5 million (maybe, who knows) people have entered the United States illegally, and as I see it, that is irresponsible, illegal, immoral. Now, if you propose to do something about this situation, which would ordinarily be “you are illegal, you have to go back and apply through the regular channels,” the charade of families who have been here for 50 years and are undocumented begins. Smoke, fog, “other things are more important.” The inevitable history lesson, Ellis Island, what about the Italian mafia? All nonsense. I still cannot figure out from those in favor of (illegal) immigration a vision or policy. The only transparent ones are those who say that because some of these immigrants are paid much less than citizens or legal immigrants for certain jobs, it benefits "the economy" to have them here. Everyone else just presents their mood affiliation.

t-writescode 2y ago
I don't know of many/anyone that's in favor of illegal immigration. Most people, I would argue, would say "if you just came across the border illegally, you should be sent back". So there really __isn't__ an argument there, as far as I know, outside of the position that we should have a fully open border, which I believe is not a mainstream position. *But*, that is *not* what people are actually talking about when they're talking illegal immigration. They're talking about the people who are already here, the regular scapegoats, so any conversation that talks about illegal immigration is going to necessarily talk about the people that have stayed here, and it's a smoke-screen for harming those individuals. Funny, a lot of the people complaining about illegal immigration aren't even talking about illegal immigrants, but are scapegoating, again, the people on agricultural visas, etc.
- borroka 2y ago
  But this whole conversation could be much more interesting if, instead of presenting a critical analysis of the language used by pro- or anti-immigration groups, some policies were discussed. For example, one might say that undocumented people with no criminal records who have been here for more than x years, would be given documents. All the others will be deported. Then, one might discuss the merits of x years instead of z years, but it would be a starting point. "I don't know of many/anyone that's in favor of illegal immigration" -- all those who are against deporting illegals, support illegal immigration. One cannot say with a straight face, well, I am of course against illegal immigration, but since they are already here..."Sure, I am against homicides but since the guy is already dead..."