3 ms·

What actual, concrete benefit do you see from deporting immigrants?

gruez 10mo ago
>you see from deporting immigrants? Nice job sneakily changing "immigration enforcement" to "deporting immigrants".
PlanksVariable 10mo ago
The question is about deporting illegal immigrants specifically, i.e. people who are in a country in violated of its immigration laws. I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. If we don’t have immigration laws, we have an open border and with an open border, we can’t regulate the rate at which people enter the country. This rate can easily exceed the amount that the country reasonably accommodate, which negative impact on housing, healthcare, welfare, transportation, civic cohesion, and education systems. Immigration law is standard around the world, with deportation being the standard response to people who violate that law. The more interesting question here is how you think a modern country will function and continue serving the needs of its citizens when it stops enforcing its immigration laws.
- ok_dad 10mo ago
  > I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. How do you feel about ICE raiding citizens homes without warrants? How about door to door raids? If ICE cannot even follow the 4th and 5th amendments then they should be jailed themselves.
  - PlanksVariable 10mo ago
    They currently use administrative warrants but I’m in favor of requiring judicial warrants.
    - fzeroracer 10mo ago
      Boss, they already require judicial warrants. They're blatantly violating constitutional rights. Do you think we have constitutional rights or not? Do we have laws or not?
      - PlanksVariable 10mo ago
        I agree, but I’m clarifying the facts: they’re claiming an administrative warrant gives them authority to enter a house, not no warrant as OP stated.
        deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
        direwolf20 10mo ago
        An administrative warrant is just an email from their boss telling them to do it. It's not a real thing
        e44858 10mo ago
        Has this ever been tested in court?
        direwolf20 10mo ago
        What would that even mean? You present the judge an email from your boss and ask "Your Honour, is this an email from my boss?"
        ok_dad 10mo ago
        This is a serious topic but holy crap can you imagine that. I feel like I’m in bizarro world that anyone takes that argument seriously.
        jfyi 10mo ago
- direwolf20 10mo ago
  What if a law only has consequences for the people it's intended for? Let's say you have a requirement that all TVs should be registered, so you can make sure every TV owner has a TV licence. You find an unregistered TV, but the owner has a TV licence. Does it make sense to confiscate the TV? What purpose would that serve? Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?
  - gruez 10mo ago
    >Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve? To ensure that people go through the checkpoint in the first place? For instance, the point of airport security checkpoints is to make sure that no terrorists get on planes, but if there's no penalty for you jumping the fence, why would people even bother going through the checkpoint? And all of this is ignoring the other purposes of immigration policy, eg. preserving jobs or whatever.
    - direwolf20 10mo ago
      Is the goal making sure everyone goes through the serial killer checkpoint, or is the goal stopping serial killers?
      - gruez 10mo ago
        So the is implication is that we should get rid of airport checkpoints, because our actual goal is to catch terrorists? What about speed enforcement cameras? The law might be that you drive 20 in a school zone, but isn't our goal to actually stop dangerous drivers? Actually, why even bother stopping dangerous drivers? The actual thing we care about is stopping accidents. If you're doing street racing at 4am, who's going to get hit?
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

gruez 10mo ago

>you see from deporting immigrants? Nice job sneakily changing "immigration enforcement" to "deporting immigrants".

The question is about deporting illegal immigrants specifically, i.e. people who are in a country in violated of its immigration laws. I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. If we don’t have immigration laws, we have an open border and with an open border, we can’t regulate the rate at which people enter the country. This rate can easily exceed the amount that the country reasonably accommodate, which negative impact on housing, healthcare, welfare, transportation, civic cohesion, and education systems. Immigration law is standard around the world, with deportation being the standard response to people who violate that law. The more interesting question here is how you think a modern country will function and continue serving the needs of its citizens when it stops enforcing its immigration laws.

ok_dad 10mo ago
> I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. How do you feel about ICE raiding citizens homes without warrants? How about door to door raids? If ICE cannot even follow the 4th and 5th amendments then they should be jailed themselves.
- PlanksVariable 10mo ago
  They currently use administrative warrants but I’m in favor of requiring judicial warrants.
  - fzeroracer 10mo ago
    Boss, they already require judicial warrants. They're blatantly violating constitutional rights. Do you think we have constitutional rights or not? Do we have laws or not?
    - PlanksVariable 10mo ago
      I agree, but I’m clarifying the facts: they’re claiming an administrative warrant gives them authority to enter a house, not no warrant as OP stated.
      - deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
      - direwolf20 10mo ago
        An administrative warrant is just an email from their boss telling them to do it. It's not a real thing
        e44858 10mo ago
        Has this ever been tested in court?
        direwolf20 10mo ago
        What would that even mean? You present the judge an email from your boss and ask "Your Honour, is this an email from my boss?"
        ok_dad 10mo ago
        This is a serious topic but holy crap can you imagine that. I feel like I’m in bizarro world that anyone takes that argument seriously.
      - jfyi 10mo ago
direwolf20 10mo ago
What if a law only has consequences for the people it's intended for? Let's say you have a requirement that all TVs should be registered, so you can make sure every TV owner has a TV licence. You find an unregistered TV, but the owner has a TV licence. Does it make sense to confiscate the TV? What purpose would that serve? Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?
- gruez 10mo ago
  >Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve? To ensure that people go through the checkpoint in the first place? For instance, the point of airport security checkpoints is to make sure that no terrorists get on planes, but if there's no penalty for you jumping the fence, why would people even bother going through the checkpoint? And all of this is ignoring the other purposes of immigration policy, eg. preserving jobs or whatever.
  - direwolf20 10mo ago
    Is the goal making sure everyone goes through the serial killer checkpoint, or is the goal stopping serial killers?
    - gruez 10mo ago
      So the is implication is that we should get rid of airport checkpoints, because our actual goal is to catch terrorists? What about speed enforcement cameras? The law might be that you drive 20 in a school zone, but isn't our goal to actually stop dangerous drivers? Actually, why even bother stopping dangerous drivers? The actual thing we care about is stopping accidents. If you're doing street racing at 4am, who's going to get hit?

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]