Should the federal government send aid to cities for migrants ?

I didn’t say anything about yanking anything. Not sure where you’re getting that from. I interpreted your question as asking me to explain, in layman terms, the distinction between a privilege and a right as it applies to immigration. That is what I provided to you. No foreign national has a right to enter our country. This is what distinguishes a country from a place like Antarctica. If you want to go to Antarctica, there are no borders, no government, and no one there to open the door for you, because there are no doors

 

I was getting that from you making a big deal about the granting of asylum being a privilege, like it was something you could just revoke willy nilly.

 

It baffles me how bad it is!

I have done mortgages for people who have been here years on a green card still waiting to get citizenship. Just good people who pay taxes every year but yet can’t get citizenship status without spending lots of time and money on attorneys.

 

Not revoke, deny. But I’m sure they can also revoke asylum as well under certain conditions, just like the state can revoke your driving privileges.

We all good now

 

we share the same distain for the system. I don’t think a single person in this country without authority should ever be able to get citizenship. I think they all should be deported. Everyone who did things the right way and got in line should get their applications for citizenship adjudicated in a timely manner.

NO LINE CUTTING

 

Why are the dissenters of this thread talking about illegals, sanctuary cities and the border? The people in the

Now we're just playing semantics at this point. Whether you want to call them legal or illegal, if someone has a pending asylum case they have the right to not be deported. If you don't like it then you have to press Congress to change it

 

Still waiting on an explanation how spending billions in government taxpayer monies to deport millions that would result in a recession with massive inflation is a benefit to me, a citizen of this country?

And if a country with no borders isn't a country, do people celebrate 1882 instead of 1776 as the founding of the US? Because the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first immigration law the US ever passed. Before then, just about everyone was let in. 1882 only restricted Chinese, and it wasn't until 1921 that the first immigration quota was established that actually legally stopped people from simply walking into the US from Mexico.

The system I'm proposing isn't an open border when everyone and anyone can come in. Immigrants on work visas would have to register, prove they are working, pay taxes, etc. Very similar to the Canadian law. If Canadian employers prove they can't fill open positions with citizens, the government allows the business to fill with anyone who enters, assuming they register, have no criminal history, and fill the wanted job. Is Canada not considered a country because of their immigration laws?

As for line cutters, again, how do I benefit from spending taxpayer monies to deport them? Explain it how we actually benefit from deporting millions, and I might support it. But again, upending businesses throughout the country resulting in a significant loss of business while creating a huge labor supply shortage resulting in inflation is not a benefit. It's something we should avoid, as it benefits nobody, and generally, hurts all of us.

 

The point is they are still not legal. We are just currently not enforcing the laws that we do have.

 

That's an easy one. Immigration/border is a Fed issue per the Constitution.

Still waiting on a good reason why we need to destroy out economy by enforcing current immigration laws when we can change the law and avoid the stagflation.

 

because the libbies said so....

 

I don't think the House will sign off on that unnecessary spending.

Here's a better idea, stop bringing in illegal aliens into our country... problem solved.

 

Let's talk about them specifically. Which law are you saying is not being enforced?

 

What does "bringing in illegal alliens" have to do with people claiming asylum? Why are you talking about something completely different than the problem at hand?

 

CIS is an anti-immigrant hate group (literally co-founded by a white supremacist). They are unsurprisingly wrong.

That is incorrect. They are allowed to stay until their case is adjudicated because we are enforcing the laws we have.

 

I have no way of saying otherwise. The article at least sourced a lot of US code.

Have anything you can share to dispute?

 

Maybe my explanation can help: your premise is nothing but pure speculation. I’m not saying your wrong, but I am saying your hypothetical is not a foregone conclusion or fact.

As for the benefit of getting rid of the illegal immigrants, it is twofold. First, you demonstrate to the world, especially those who have already followed the rules, that we are a country of laws, not a country of suggestions. Those people who have come here legally, filled out the paperwork, paid the fees, and now are waiting in line to become citizens, are going to be rewarded for doing things the right way. That is certainly a benefit to not only the citizens who have been in line, because you are demonstrating to them that their patience and hard work actually paid off, but it is also a benefit to all of the people who want to come here in that they know what they need to do in order to take their place in this country.

Second, it is a benefit financially. The illegal immigrants in this nation are a net negative financially. The benefits that they receive far outweigh the tax revenue they bring in.

as for the cost to remove them, I’ve already posted ideas for that. Those included incentivizing illegal immigrants to deport themselves. Otherwise the consequences would be very severe. Another solution, which was tried somewhat back in the 80s if I remember correctly, is to criminalize the employment of illegal immigrants. If you take away their jobs, they will leave voluntarily. You can also criminalize housing for them as well. There’s no cost to the federal government in pursuing this avenue, because they can fee shift the fees and cost to the violators.

my point is there are many ways to accomplish the task. That has never been the issue. The issue is, does our country have the will to do it?

 

Wrong on many levels. We've seen the economic results on smaller scales, including state level, of what happens when you drive undocumented immigrants out. A decade ago, Alabama lost $10.8 billion with their anti-immigration law.

You are also wrong about undocumented immigrants being a net fiscal loss. The Libertarian CATO Institute estimates the average, 25 year old immigrant is a net positive of $216,000 to the economy over the next 30 years. And that doesn't include the value of any kids. DACA estimated a few years ago that ending DACA would cost the economy $200 billion and a loss of tax revenues of $60 million by the year 2030.

Frankly, I don't care about immigrants who cut in line and those who did it the right way. Our immigration system is broken, and for many, there never was, and never will be a line to get into. The facts are they are here, they are working, and it benefits all to allow them to stay. The issue isn't the immigrants didn't do things the right way. It's our system was awful for years, and we should have had a way to allow those to come here to do it the right way. For those here for decades already, it would be cruel and unusual to punish them now.

There is a good reason why two separate bipartisan Senate groups came up with the same solution. And it didn't include mass deportation. That would be spending billions to cause major economic damage that hurts all of us. Again, this isn't theory. It's what has already happened on a smaller scale. And also basic economics. Demand stays relatively the same, but supply drops dramatically, prices go up, and economy tanks. 50% of all crops are picked by some sort of immigrant. Agriculture is a $100 billion a year industry. Even at 15%, that's a loss of $15 billion to the economy, and 15% less food for everyone to eat. Tell me again how this is good and fair policy?

Of course, it's not just the farmers who would struggle with allowing crops to die on the vine. Crops don't magically go from field to store magically. There are those who process, transport, stock, and sell said crops. A 15% reduction in crops would mean less work for all these people as well. The impact would trickle down and be much more than just $15 billion, as people would be laid off, because employers don't generally keep people employed if they don't have work for them.

My conclusion is 100% correct. There's good reason why we don't see massive ICE raids on businesses, and there was a two decade gap between Clinton raiding the Vidalia onion farms, and Trump raiding Chicken plants in Miss. And no raids since. The negatives far outweigh the positives. Not theory. Fact.

 

Let me go paragraph by paragraph

Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong
Wrong and
Wrong

You got your name right.

 

I posted sources with numbers to back up my facts. You? Just post your unsubstantiated opinion? There's good reason why no POTUS has ever tried mass deportation, and two bipartisan Senate groups didn't suggest it either. The consequences would be horribly bad for the country. It's simple economics. Can anyone explain how we'd benefit from doubling the ratio of open positions to unemployed from 1.5 jobs per unemployed to close to 3?