4 ms·

>Saying "there is no such thing as a perfect process" when discussing the unconstitutional deportation of LITERAL American citizens on an overnight, including a

>Saying "there is no such thing as a perfect process" when discussing the unconstitutional deportation of LITERAL American citizens on an overnight, including a child with cancer deprived of medication, isn't a reasonable position. It's an attempt to normalize extreme rights violations. As I've mentioned in other comments non-judicial removals (no immigration hearing) are in fact very common accounting for nearly 75% of all removals. Deportation of American citizens has happened, and it is wrong. It's been happening every year in small numbers for the last 30 years. In the OP case in particular the children were deported with the parents at the parent's request according to a DHS statement. So this was not a mistake. >I'm actually curious - are you aware of that law? Did you hear about it? Of course, you're talking about The Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act. The 'immigration amendment' wasn't really necessary and you could argue the better electronic communications outlined in the bill actually could increase immigration efficiency. It was a very popular lie that legislation was needed to stop millions of illegals from entering the country during the Biden administration. Border crossings have dropped ~95% since the new administration took over. Probably for two main reasons, no more parole while waiting for a hearing and NGO funding drying up.

JackYoustra 1y ago
If you think it's wrong then it certainly does not 'has to happen if you want to live in a sovereign nation under the rule of law' If you can't criticize the overall objective (large-scale depopulation of America because so-called undesirables don't meet arbitrary legal criteria) then at least criticize the approach - don't call it an ugly but necessary business. Call it a completely unnecessary violation of civil rights and due process that it is! Don't make up garbage about sovereignty.
- AustinDev 1y ago
  My argument was that remigration is never going to be pretty however it is necessary to enforce your immigration laws as a nation to be fully sovereign. Deporting citizens was never part of that argument. It's obviously wrong, it's been happening at a small scale for decades. If that number changes and we see even a 2-3x growth in the number Americans mistakenly deported, I'll be the first in line to call for regime change. It's unacceptable just like the talk of sending US Citizens to foreign prisons, it's just insane.
  - JackYoustra 1y ago
    At this point I mostly agree with you, but I kinda want to keep going on the sovereignty thing. Prosecutorial discretion and state incapacity to prosecute every crime has existed... literally forever. Sovereignty only means "supreme power or authority" - I don't see how migrants threaten it, it's not like they're trying to lead an insurrection or anything.
    - AustinDev 1y ago
      Sovereignty may have been an imprecise word choice for sure. However, I do not think having 10's of millions of people in the country without legal status who can be easily abused is 'a good thing'. I also don't think amnesty is a viable solution. So mass remigration is the only real solution I see. As we approach a post-labor economy over the coming decades how many more people do we actually need? I don't know I'm not an economist but, my gut tells me not a whole lot. You didn't ask but what's my ideal immigration solution? I'm not an expert but this seems common sense to me, maybe it's extreme let me know. RICO the NGO's who funded the mass migration. Offer a check and a plane ride for anyone that wants to self deport. Stiff penalties and permanent banning and deportation for those that don't take the offer. On the legal immigration side cancel all non-tourist visa types and let existing visas expire. Replace them with a simple employer sponsored visa with a ~400k/year (inflation adjusted) payroll tax and let any company that wants to pay the tax sponsor as many people as they want. The free market would sort out who is the best and brightest and bring them over. Provide these people and their immediate families with an easy path to citizenship over ~5-10 years. Probably need some solution for allowing in seasonal farm workers.
      - JackYoustra 1y ago
        The free market will determine the best place for these people without arbitrary categories that you've given, we should let in basically anyone who wants to come. NGOs are good. They should stay, it helps with integration and placement. I don't see why you create random liberalization rules and call it free market, those are as arbitrary as the ones we currently have. People should be free to move where they want with only the same small checks we have in place for visitor visas. > I don't know I'm not an economist but, my gut tells me not a whole lot. please read the literature, it's now easier than ever with gpt web + most researchers pitching their work on twitter

JackYoustra 1y ago

If you think it's wrong then it certainly does not 'has to happen if you want to live in a sovereign nation under the rule of law' If you can't criticize the overall objective (large-scale depopulation of America because so-called undesirables don't meet arbitrary legal criteria) then at least criticize the approach - don't call it an ugly but necessary business. Call it a completely unnecessary violation of civil rights and due process that it is! Don't make up garbage about sovereignty.

AustinDev 1y ago
My argument was that remigration is never going to be pretty however it is necessary to enforce your immigration laws as a nation to be fully sovereign. Deporting citizens was never part of that argument. It's obviously wrong, it's been happening at a small scale for decades. If that number changes and we see even a 2-3x growth in the number Americans mistakenly deported, I'll be the first in line to call for regime change. It's unacceptable just like the talk of sending US Citizens to foreign prisons, it's just insane.
- JackYoustra 1y ago
  At this point I mostly agree with you, but I kinda want to keep going on the sovereignty thing. Prosecutorial discretion and state incapacity to prosecute every crime has existed... literally forever. Sovereignty only means "supreme power or authority" - I don't see how migrants threaten it, it's not like they're trying to lead an insurrection or anything.
  - AustinDev 1y ago
    Sovereignty may have been an imprecise word choice for sure. However, I do not think having 10's of millions of people in the country without legal status who can be easily abused is 'a good thing'. I also don't think amnesty is a viable solution. So mass remigration is the only real solution I see. As we approach a post-labor economy over the coming decades how many more people do we actually need? I don't know I'm not an economist but, my gut tells me not a whole lot. You didn't ask but what's my ideal immigration solution? I'm not an expert but this seems common sense to me, maybe it's extreme let me know. RICO the NGO's who funded the mass migration. Offer a check and a plane ride for anyone that wants to self deport. Stiff penalties and permanent banning and deportation for those that don't take the offer. On the legal immigration side cancel all non-tourist visa types and let existing visas expire. Replace them with a simple employer sponsored visa with a ~400k/year (inflation adjusted) payroll tax and let any company that wants to pay the tax sponsor as many people as they want. The free market would sort out who is the best and brightest and bring them over. Provide these people and their immediate families with an easy path to citizenship over ~5-10 years. Probably need some solution for allowing in seasonal farm workers.
    - JackYoustra 1y ago
      The free market will determine the best place for these people without arbitrary categories that you've given, we should let in basically anyone who wants to come. NGOs are good. They should stay, it helps with integration and placement. I don't see why you create random liberalization rules and call it free market, those are as arbitrary as the ones we currently have. People should be free to move where they want with only the same small checks we have in place for visitor visas. > I don't know I'm not an economist but, my gut tells me not a whole lot. please read the literature, it's now easier than ever with gpt web + most researchers pitching their work on twitter