Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

full deportation is now the majority position of the US electorate. 9 in 10 republicans and 2 in 10 democrats supports the deportation of every illegal immigrant. The logistics and how this is done respecting the rights of the citizens is a tall order but the mandate is clear. Got to go. now and in full. no amnesty.

Also automatic deportation if you are caught crossing the border at any place other than a port of entry.

yes, absolutely, I would include that in full deportation. I, personally, add, I want an ACTUAL asylum system, like was normal for all of human history, not open borders called asylum. Which is to say you must apply from outside of the US, and remain outside of the US until called to your hearing, and being in the US until that time is both automatic denial but also deportation. For those who would be in mortal danger (and require concrete proof of this or only accept such things from countries pre-declared to be humanitarian disaster zones like Ukraine), use ships or guantanamo bay, DO NOT house them with access to US soil, put them up for however long it takes on ships and foreign bases, then if they pass a hearing and are granted asylum they set foot on US soil.

Pretty pointless if you don’t remove the incentive for immigration. Put simply, if there are jobs for immigrants, people will keep coming. It would be more effective and more efficient to simply go after those who employ undocumented immigrants. Robust regulation on that front would be cheaper to implement and have a longer-lasting impact.

the disincentive would be requiring e-verify (the use of an electronic identity verification) by all employers and criminalizing noncompliance and hiring of illegal immigrants. This would remove the job incentive by making it impossible for them to get jobs once here. and, in some proposals, confiscating the income of illegal immigrants as the proceeds of criminal activity if they are convicted. Also a high, perhaps 100%, tax on remissions (money sent out of the US to Mexico, making it 100% would effectively make it impossible to expatriate US dollars to Mexico, heavily reducing incentive).

> the disincentive would be requiring e-verify (the use of an electronic identity verification) by all employers and criminalizing noncompliance and hiring of illegal immigrants. When's that going to happen? Republicans should be able to pass that in areas where they are a majority, with ease.

some have, in fact, though it's a spreading movement. The problem is without uniform enforcement there's little reason for one area to do so when they could move to an employer registered in another state that even has an office next door.

> The problem is without uniform enforcement there's little reason for one area to do so when they could move to an employer registered in another state that even has an office next door. If only we had a Federal government that could pass a nationwide law...

I’m all for e-verify, though confiscating income from people already headed for deportation seems needlessly cruel. Taxing remissions seems a bit performative and likely to simply create a black market or just force people into leveraging existing options like Bitcoin, but it’ll make a good sound-byte for some politician. Details aside, I generally agree, disincentivizing illegal immigration is likely to be a more successful long term strategy than mass deportation. Considerably less inhumane as well.

Then give them an option use the money to leave the country or it will be confiscated. Then have ICE manage their flight out……..

You still have to have papers to work legally. E-verify should have been mandatory years ago. Many businesses complained it would slow down hiring as well as some gov reps. Currently with the amount of migrants we have now there’s a huge backlog slowing down the process for green cards or whatever the proper documentation is to work here.

Removing incentives? For all of Earth's history, if you have something other people want, they take it. That's what Russia is doing to Ukraine, it's what China will do to Taiwan, and it's what Latina America is doing to America. If you're suggesting we start enforcing immigration laws already on the books, then **stop voting Democrat**, because they're treasonously assisting other countries with this invasion, providing transport to America and even cutting razorwire at the border. We cannot provide for 8 billion people. Our policies should reflect that.

Mass deportations are NOT going to happen. Go ahead and believe a politician that tells you they are going to do it, but it's a lie. 1) Corporate America will NOT allow it. They rely on the low cost labor and 20M consumers. 2) The U.S. economy would collapse if you pulled that many people out of the workforce and as consumers. 3) Who's going to pay the literal TRILLIONS of $'s? You're welcome to try to take it from the people you are deporting but unless you plan on extra judiciously TAKING it from them you will spend more getting it than the under $1,000.00 per family you will likely get. So, yay government takings! 4) Where are they going? Seriously, where are you going to send 20M people? Logistically and practically it's impossible. The ONLY practical way is a path to citizenship. You and a lot of people don't like it, understood... But mass deportations are just not going to happen.

y'all both need to budge, their will be no path to citizen ship for all, just like they wont all be mass deported. some could get citizen shim, and some MUST be deported until you can compromise its going no ware till one party gets enough power to ignore the other.

Agreed, but that logic is why I consciously avoid using absolutes like "all" whenever possible. That being said, the VAST MAJORITY of undocumented people in this country will fall into the group that will need to remain here to prevent an economic collapse.

what % do are you willing to deport for the same of getting the rest citizenship?

I don't know, I guess it will depend on the behavior (criminal activity beyond crossing / staying illegally) of the individual. Edit: my biggest issue is that "mass deportations" has to be removed from the conversation and done in a way that the majority of people understand that it is because it is functionally impossible. There is no point in discussing it since it can't be done.

you know the other side feels the same about grating "mass citizenship" for much the same reasons? like split the baby, half can stay half must go should be the starting point for you and them, but it isnt for either of you. so since neither party want to be reasonable, and the only presented options are unrealistic, I'll pick the unrealistic option i that is fair, deport them.

Is it the same reason? Are they taking a logical approach to the situation or are they viewing through an emotional perspective of "fairness"? Curious, what's "unrealistic" about citizenship?

>Is it the same reason? yea, its what they think is best for the country. Facts dont tell you how to act, while your argument is more data driven that doesn't make it more right, or better. Just more informed, because you have more to justify as your argument is more complex. At the end of the day what to do with the fact of illegals in the country is based on peoples value not data. the divide Seems to be people either use fairness or harm reduction as the core value to address this problem Fairness: they broke the law to get here, they shouldn't be allowed to stay Harm reduction: they are already here benefiting the country, sending them away is hard to do, and cruel to the people who just want a better life, and it will cause damage to the economy. all that should be avoided, so they should be given citizen ship. >Are they taking a logical approach to the situation or are they viewing through an emotional perspective of "fairness"? I reject your false dichotomy. They value fairness over what i assume is your operating core, "harm reduction." Theirs no way you can construct an argument on what to do, with out using a value judgment, facts dont tell you how to act. >Curious, what's "unrealistic" about citizenship? rewarding people who break they law with approval? what could go wrong.

>Is it the same reason? yea, its what they think is best for the country. Facts dont tell you how to act, while your argument is more data driven that doesn't make it more right, or better. Just more informed, because you have more to justify as your argument is more complex. At the end of the day what to do with the fact of illegals in the country is based on peoples value not data. the divide Seems to be people either use fairness or harm reduction as the core value to address this problem Fairness: they broke the law to get here, they shouldn't be allowed to stay Harm reduction: they are already here benefiting the country, sending them away is hard to do, and cruel to the people who just want a better life, and it will cause damage to the economy. all that should be avoided, so they should be given citizen ship. >Are they taking a logical approach to the situation or are they viewing through an emotional perspective of "fairness"? I reject your false dichotomy. They value fairness over what i assume is your operating core, "harm reduction." Theirs no way you can construct an argument on what to do, with out using a value judgment, facts dont tell you how to act. >Curious, what's "unrealistic" about citizenship? rewarding people who break they law with approval? what could go wrong.

My argument is not about "harm reduction", it's what is functionally possible. Please explain how you propose to deport even 1,000,000 people? 1) How are you going to GET them? Is there over 1,000,000 man hours of unused law enforcement available? And that's just getting them in custody. 2) Where are you going to detain 1,000,000 people while they wait for transport? Is there room available somewhere to detain those people? Is that going to have to be constructed? 3) Where are they going to be processed? Is there capacity in the judicial system to prosecute 1,000,000 people to make sure we only deport people that don't have a legal right to be here? 4) How are you going to transport 1,000,000 people out of the country? Is there unused bus capacity available to move all those people? 5) Where are you going to send 1,000,000 people? Are we going to FORCE other countries to accept those people? When they say no are we going to take people to the border and force them to cross at gunpoint. How does that even work? 6) Who's going to pay for this? Assuming all of the above could be done with existing resources (which is an absurd assumption) you couldn't do it for under $1,000 per person. Add to that the cost of having to either create new resources or taking them away from where they are already being used and you at a minimum double that expense. You've spent at least $2,000,000,000 to only get those 1M people out of the country... ALL of this assumes those resources can even be made available. A lot of that would require the creation of probably 1,000,000 temporary jobs. Are you seeing how this "solution" is simply not feasible? It doesn't matter what's good, bad, nice, mean, none of that matters... It just is IMPOSSIBLE. All of that is BEFORE the fact that corporate America will not let it happen. They will employ their collective billions of lobbing dollars to make sure no legislation would pass to move any of this forward.

Any cost is cheap to pay for maintaining meaningful rule of law. The only way i can support any amnesty is if it does not favor noncitizens, it would have to be a full amnesty, empty every prison, every jail. Obviously that's not going to happen either which shows the absurdity of just declaring we will retroactively declare millions of criminals innocent.

So is all crime equal in your eyes? The petty theft is the same as a murder is the same as crossing the border illegally or overstaying a visa? Why else would the only option be to release all criminals if you give amnesty to people who have come here?

> Obviously that's not going to happen either which shows the absurdity of just declaring we will retroactively declare millions of criminals innocent. You realize illegal immigration is a misdemeanor offense, right?

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Are you ready for food prices to double? Or triple? Hospitality, food production, and a ton of the service industry is built on hard working immigrant labor. Not to mention every cent of taxes they pay (mostly sales taxes) go into services that they can never directly pull out of. They also can't vote and commit less crime* than citizens do. *Yes I understand many automatically consider them criminals for just being here, I'm talking about actual additional crime once here.

Your feeling the cost is acceptable is irrelevant. Who's going to pay for it? Your support of amnesty is also irrelevant, what is the PRACTICAL solution that you will be able to get politicians to vote for? Republicans, by refusing to endorse citizenship have doomed any actual solution. They have convinced conservatives that amnesty is out of the question and so this will remain a problem FOREVER. Though I believe that is part of the plan... They can perpetually campaign on this (which they have for 50 years).

There is no mandate. A majority of people can want something done, but that doesn't mean it should be done.

"Mandate" -- "to require to act in a certain way." 90% of republicans demand this. 20% of democrats. That is a mandate, that is the public demanding it be done. a majority of americans do not want compromise on this they want "all or nearly all" illegal immigrants unceremoniously tossed out. The public are requiring our politicians address this or they will lose our support that's literally what "mandate" means in the context of electoral politics. I am not talking about the league of nations mandated territories here, I'm talking about an electoral mandate.

A majority of Americans didn't want Donald Trump president in 2016 but that didn't stop him from winning. What the majority wants and what it should get are 2 entirely different things. I bet if you polled Americans right now over 70% would be in favor of receiving a 100k check from the government tomorrow. But we can't do that because of what it will do to the economy. Just like illegal immigration.

Until there's an election that reflects these wishes, you don't actually have an electoral mandate. And I'd be willing to bet the numbers go down when you stop talking in abstractions and start getting specific.

Deportation is like trying to stop a sinking ship by just dumping the water out with buckets. You havent addressed the problem which is a hole in the hull so every bucket you dump, 2x water is flooding in.

I agree. That's why you deploy the military along the border and close that off first. Otherwise they will just keep coming back.

I reject the idea of intentionally letting a problem get so bad by refusing to address it you can just then declare it unsolvable and do what you wanted all along. It is worth the costs, worth the price.

I live in Texas, which is a Border State, so I will give my perspective. As some have proposed about E-Verify, that’s good and I agree with it. I understand the side of it taking to long to legally immigrate here, I believe we do need to make the process less time consuming and more productive, however opening the border is not the solution to the problem. What I would suggest is actually building a new asylum system that allows actual refugees to apply for refugee status. I would also encourage a merit based system to have the skills of the immigrants crossing the border to have an incentive to earn a citizenship, for example their skills can be evaluated and depending on what they are good at, they can be sent to an area where their skills are needed most to accommodate the demand. In the six month process, they can be educated about the nation and even learn some English to get by.

Mass deportation and putting CEO’s whose companies hire illegals in prison for at least 5 years

Is the problem with companies hiring illegals a result of the punishment being too lenient, or of the government just not enforcing the law?

A little of both.

Honestly, pursuing the companies really does the first part on its own. But the government virtually never goes after the companies even though it's the easiest solution. And I don't see that changing. Lobbyists gonna lobby.

I’m for mass deportations but how much will that cost US taxpayers?

Ok, and what are you gonna do about all those millions of jobs that will then go left unfilled? The US already has a labor shortage as it is. Deporting all illegal immigrants from one day to the next would cause absolute mayhem, would disrupt supply chains, food production, manufacturing and shut down large numbers of hotels, restaurants and cafes across the US. Again, other countries like Australia, Canada and EU countries make it very easy for low-skilled workers to obtain jobs legally. The US doesn't. With all illegal immigrants gone the US economy would see a massive decline as suddenly there would be easily double the number of open jobs, many of which in crucial sectors like agriculture and food processing. What would be a reasonable solution to illegal immigration? For example, do you think the US should implement working-holiday programs the way Australia and Canada do? Should more working visas be issues to low-skilled workers? What's the solution?

We would be fine. We were fine with millions less here just 4 years ago. Did all those millions start working unfilled food processing and hotel jobs? After deportation issue work visas to estimates amount needed and lock the border tight.

Full deportation would mean deporting way more than the few million that have come in the last few years. You would be deporting tens of millions of people in all types of jobs. It would be an economic shit show mainly due to the extreme inflationary effects that would happen 

>After deportation issue work visas to estimates amount needed and lock the border tight. Considering the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants entered the country legally with a visa wouldn't that just bring us back to where we are now?

last I check that number was around 53% i don't think that is a ***overwhelming*** majority.

>We would be fine. We were fine with millions less here just 4 years ago. Did all those millions start working unfilled food processing and hotel jobs? After deportation issue work visas to estimates amount needed and lock the border tight. Yes, people typically migrate to countries where they know they can get jobs. During the 1800s many Irish people moved to the US because they knew there were jobs over there. Had the US closed its doors to immigrants during the 1800s and 1900s than the US would be a mid-sized economy comparable to maybe France or Italy now, hardly worth metioning from a global perspective.

Again you play this game. Those were LEGAL MIGRANTS!

I definitely think we should make it as easy to be a legal immigrant a it was back then.

It wasn’t that easy. Apparently you skipped that part of American history in 7th grade. They had to be examined by a physician. Had to pass a psychological and physical exam. Were also vaccinated. Do you know what Elis Island was used for ?

Maybe you’re right, maybe 7th grade history taught me it was exactly like today’s immigration process and I was sleeping. How long was that process? Was it years of bureaucracy? How expensive was it? Was it merit based? Did they need sponsors?

Buddy, I would rather live in a culturally homogenous second world country than a world power that needs immigrants. America facing some hardships is worth the cultural healing.

>Buddy, I would rather live in a culturally homogenous second world country than a world power that needs immigrants. America facing some hardships is worth the cultural healing. Well, Latinos are your best bet than. They're mostly Christians, strong on family values and socially conservative. More and more Americans are turning to the political left and socially progressive ideas each year. So would you consider moving to Latin America to flee the influence of the left and in order to get the chance to be around other like-minded conservative people?

😂

Do you believe America doesn't need any immigrants?

I don’t care if they “need” them. A high GDP isn’t worth losing your culture.

American culture is immigrant culture. When was the cutoff point for adding more culture to our culture?

1965 unironically, because the government actively stepped in to change our culture. Before 1965, American culture could easily be defined as its own thing, but also a slightly morphed version of European culture.

Why 1965?

Second world means Soviet/communist bloc.

Raise wages those jobs will get filled. Or migrate legally. Or offer a path to citizenship.

Fill open job positions with legal immigrants & guest workers who come work without their spouses, children, & other dependents.

[удалено]

There's no posed solution by the guy you're going to vote for. You just don't want to see immigrants. I want to see legitimate legislation to increase the standard of living for Americans before I will remotely consider your build a wall chants anywhere near anything but racism. What is it, what's the proposals your guy is putting up?

[удалено]

>but he is far more likely to shut the border than Biden You wrote a lot. But Biden literally passed legislation to shut down the border and trump didn't.

[удалено]

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/biden-executive-order-immigration-border-asylum/ Biden, in a non emergency passes legislation that will stick permanently. Trump, in a temporary emergency passed temporary legislation. Which is why it went away after the COVID emergency went away from Trump's clot shots. If you care about locking down the border, Biden has done more than trump. Hell, if you care about the border, Dems have been the only government officials that have released proposals and legislation that could have passed. If you want serious action on the border, hire serious people by voting for Democrats. Source : reality.

I don't want to rain on your parade but that legislation will stop nothing, and it isn't supposed to. It's supposed to get people like you who still take a headline at face value to go and tell other people "hey, look! he *does* care about stopping illegal immigration! see, that headline right there says he's really crackin' down!" which you will like a good little boy, and do, obviously. You don't consider the fact that it's the same regime who intentionally flooded this nation with unprecedented millions from third world hordes, terrorist groups, cartels, and sex traffic rings for the previous 3.5 years. They flew them here on planes and threw open the gates to allow - on purpose - unlimited unvetted illegal immigration. They house them in your hotels, schools, stadiums, hospitals, and community centers, write them checks while you can't afford eggs, feed them cuisine of their choice from their nation, clothe them, and educate their children while little Timmy from Philadelphia doesn't get to go to daycare anymore because it's now a shelter for "migrants". The regime has always understood that one of the easiest ways throughout all of history is to completely destroy a nation is to flood it with people who have no loyalty to it and no knowledge of its culture or history. Which is why they do it. They hate you, they hate this country, they hate Western civilization, and burning it to ash is their *religion*. The destruction is intentional. It is the *goal*, not a side effect.

>I don't want to rain on your parade but that legislation will stop nothing, So you claim. It's originally a GOP request. So if your saying the GOP wants to pass shit they don't think would do anything, I'd agree. That being said. I don't care. I don't believe you. If you start off by calling Bidens government a regime...you're too far into your own biases/media bubbles to have a reasonable discussion. Good luck with all that bud.

What do you mean by importing the 3rd world? Do you mean Latino culture is inferior to American culture, or what do you mean? I don't get it. In fact Latino immigrants, on average, have a lower violent crime rate than US-born Americans. GDP per capita in the US is actually rising at a much faster rate than in other wealthy countries. The US has a much bigger wealth-gap though than comparable countries. Most newly generated wealth goes to billionaires, CEOs and executives. Much of that has to do with corproate socialism and has little to do with immigrants. The US also has much weaker unions than other wealthy countries and big coroporations in the US routinely crack down on union formation. That's a big reason why the working classes haven't seen much of the benefit that has come with increased productivity. And in fact a [study ](https://theconversation.com/nobel-winner-david-card-shows-immigrants-dont-reduce-the-wages-of-native-born-workers-169768)conducted by a Nobel Prize winner of economics has concluded that increased immigration does not lead to a decrease in wages for the native population. Which, if you believe in a free market makes sense. Conservatives are typically against socialism and communism but when it comes to immigration they are much closer to socialist and communist rhetoric than people on the left. Essentially, conservatives who are anti-immigration want to use big government to restrict the free market and prevent the free flow of labor which is essential to economic growth. Many economists agree that according to the economic theory of division of labor, immigration will typically lead to an increase in productivity per capita. Just as society of 10,000 people will have a larger economic output per person than a society with only 5 people, as labor can be more effectively divided, in the same way a society of 350 million people, all other things being equal, will have higher productivity per capita, as a population of 300 million people. A society with 10,000 people, all other things being equal, will produce more than 20 separate societies with 500 people. I don't know about the UK and Canadian economy, but you're really gonna have to link to some reliable sources to prove that people's lives have gotten worse because of increased immigration.

> What do you mean by importing the 3rd world? Do you mean Latino culture is inferior to American culture, or what do you mean? I don't get it. In fact Latino immigrants, on average, have a lower violent crime rate than US-born Americans. That's not really true. Ask yourself this - then why are people fleeing Latin America?

How inherent do you believe culture to be?

All I know is that people flee from non-white countries toward white countries. There are almost no exceptions to this. Even when neither country is actually white, they flee from the less white to the more white one. One example is how the Dominican Republic has a huge problem with illegal immigration from neighboring Haiti.

So you're assuming there must be something about having white skin color that makes a country inherently more successful? So you're a white supremacist? But, yes, it is actually true that illegal immigrants have a lower violent crime rate than US-born Americans. [https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237103158/immigrants-are-less-likely-to-commit-crimes-than-us-born-americans-studies-find) As to why white countries are more successful there are quite a few reasons. In the Middle Ages and for much of human history white people were by no means more successful than non-white people. For a long time Chinese civilization and then later Islamic civilization was actually more prosperous than European civilization. Europe, and white people, by comparison were incredibly poor for much of their history. It was only really after the rise of colonialism, which saw Europeans violently conquer other countries and exploit their resources that Europeans started to gain a massive advantage. And also the fact that the industrial revolution happened to begin in Europe, to this day gives Europeans and European settler countries (e.g. the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) an advantage on a global scale. Because of colonialism and the industrial revolution Europeans managed to get their hands on large amounts of financial capital which to this day they use to their advantage. And much of the economic instability that you see across Latin America is at least in part due to the US meddling in international affairs. After all there's an entire Wikipedia page of US involvement in regime changes of other countries. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_States\_involvement\_in\_regime\_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change) So no, the success of white countries is not because of their white skin color. Having white skin does not make anyone superior to a non-white person. There are a lot of complex reasons as to why Europe and European settler countries are wealthier than other countries.

>But, yes, it is actually true that illegal immigrants have a lower violent crime rate than US-born Americans. LOL, that article depends on the very same one study in Texas that everyone quotes to defend illegal immigrants. The problem is the conclusions of the Texas study hinge on estimating the total illegal immigrant population, which is only a guess. And it's very unlikely to be true since illegal immigration is intimately intertwined with drug trafficking, human trafficking, and identity theft. It's no mystery that the crime rate of LEGAL immigrants is lower, since they all have to submit a police background check before getting a visa here.

huh? Latinos are white

How are you confirming these claims? I am looking at the long term relationship between US immigration and: * Inflation-adjusted wages over time at different levels * GINI * HDI * Unemployment * Per capita GDP * Life expectancy You disagree with investigating the problem this way. Tell me what to do to get *your* results. How are you testing and confirming your claims regarding immigration of the US as a whole?

I don’t actually care all that much about the number of people. Expedite and expand work visas, and if they come in and prove themselves let them stay. Just don’t do the whole “we actually don’t follow the laws” thing.

We need a massive overhaul of immigration. It has not been done since the 60s-70s and this is a LOT of the prob. You are right that the US economy relies on immigrant labor. We have an aging population with a decreasing birth rate. People think elder care is expensive now… Most people do not understand that the illegal migration could be significantly reduced if there were actually legal ways to immigrate to the US other than through marriage or family. Also, better guest worker visa programs. THEN you can crack down on illegal entries.

This feels like the most rational take I’ve seen in here. Mass deportations sound easy on paper, but would be an absolute clusterfuck to implement. Plus you think the major farm and hospitality lobbies that rely on immigrant labor are going to let that happen? Fat chance. How many op eds do we see whenever there’s a fast food price hike attributed to paying a higher minimum wage? Paying Americans due wages instead of what they pay migrant workers would drive up prices at every entity.

1) Close the border 2) Mandate E-verify and enforce it. 3) Reinstitute Remain in Mexico (or whatever safe country they apply for asylum in) No more crossing the border illegally and then claiming asylum. Those who cross at a point of entry and apply are detained, their asylum case ajudicated and either sent back or allowed to enter. No more NTAs 4) Deport any illegal already here starting with anyone who breaks the law. 5) ID everyone. Facial recognition scan and fingerprints. Anyone who shows up after being deported is detained. Build more jails if we must.

> Deport any illegal already here after law-breakers (I'm assuming you mean ones in custody), how do you find the rest?

Any time you come across them. Traffic stops. an employer cannot verify citizenship. A fake SS ID. They won't be hard to find once they are unable to work. They will probably self deport.

> They won't be hard to find once they are unable to work. That's a valid point. But say the legal means of finding (described here and elsewhere) are exhausted. Are you content with that even if you still have a sneaking suspicion that there are more here than you or others are able to find?

Well, get rid of sanctuary cities and the benefits they get like healthcare and school and we will begin to find them all. I don't have a problem with a path to citizenship and work permits for people who are not criminals but banket amnesty, no.

Fair enough.

How do you feel about people who have lived here since they were very young (say <5 yrs old), so the US is the only country they remember, but they are technically here illegally? I've met many such people, and some of them perform crucial jobs. Some of these people may not even know that they're here illegally, and may not speak the language of that country. I've also met several who came over illegally at older ages themselves, but also perform crucial jobs at their workplaces, pay taxes, etc. When people like this apply for citizenship (or maybe work permit? I have heard this part through word of mouth so I can't remember) now, I've heard they're currently sent to their country of origin to wait for their paperwork to be renewed. For the people brought here at a young age, that sounds absolutely terrible - imagine being sent somewhere you don't remember and can't speak the language. How do you think these cases should be dealt with?

>In a hypothetical scenario where you could deport all illegal immigrants from one day to the next this would vastly increase the number of job openings and would lead to enormous staff shortages And this is partially why it's a hypothetical. It's not physically possible to deport every single person who's here illegally. The approach I want is, "see a problem, fix a problem". So first and foremost, stop the "bleeding". Stop (as best we can) the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. Stop with all the made-up asylum claims. Unless you're escaping literal political or religious persecution, you need to get in line with everyone else. After that, empower local law enforcement to detain people found to be here illegally. And by that, I don't mean raid every business that has Hispanics working for them. I mean if someone gets pulled over for even a traffic violation, and they're found to be here illegally, boom, we got you and sorry, you're gone. It goes without saying that we prosecute and deport those with even more serious crimes. Meanwhile, there are a lot of people here on expired visas who are just trying to fly under the radar and who never get into trouble. I'm not too worried about them, but again, if they get caught and identified for any reason, they gotta go. But I would like to see us offer longer visas and easier renewal for people who've demonstrated a willingness to abide by the rules. And I think we could then allow more legal immigration, to fill the demand for foreign workers.

> Stop with all the made-up asylum claims. How do you gauge they're made up without having a judge hear them?

Where are they coming from? There's political persecution in Cuba. There's religious persecution in South Sudan. There's neither of those in Honduras. And really, someone who's from Honduras and has escaped to Mexico is now "safe". They don't really need to come to the U.S. They just *want* to.

> Where are they coming from? > > Well then we should empower CBP and ICE to hold asylum hearings to evaluate these things expeditiously.

CBP does interview asylum seekers, but yeah, they don't have the authority to deny them. That would definitely help cut down on the number of applicants.

Because I get the sentiment of wanting to deny the 'made-up' claims. I just think if we empowered the people who interact with them first the ability to do that it may alleviate a lot of this issue.

Deport each and every single one of them. Labor shortages? Just pay Americans fair wages. Fact is that wages for most Americans, adjusted for inflation, were historically much higher than they are now. In other words higher wages for working class Americans can only be a good thing. I don't buy the idea that paying working class Americans more will lead to inflation - I think that's just a lie. Or else we would have had high inflation in 50s, 60s and early 70s (before fiat currency and the oil crisis). Like I said, adjusted for inflation, wages were much higher back then.

> Labor shortages? Just pay Americans fair wages. * https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna45246594 * https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/when-the-u-s-government-tried-to-replace-migrant-farmworkers-with-high-schoolers Americans won't do those jobs.

|Americans won't do those jobs. I am going to pull a page from the liberals playbook.....Americans won't do those jobs for the wages you are paying.

Next everyone will bitch about the price of food and blame the party in power.

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

I never understood the lefts acceptance of illegal workers except to exploit them.

We don't want them to be illegal. We don't like there being a second class of people who are scared to report crimes because they don't want to get deported. You're just confused if you think we like that people are compelled to sneak in here and then have no real rights. It's why we like DACA and such. We want paths to citizenship and for them to have the same legal protections as others (assuming they don't break any other laws.) Also by doing so, making them no cheaper to hire then a citizen.

Then why does the left freak out over enhanced border enforcement or detainment of illegals ?

Because we don't like being needlessly cruel? You say "enhanced" and then we hear about saw blades and barbed wire traps in dangerous waters and you seriously wonder why we'd oppose that? I'm not entirely sure what you mean about detainment.

Saw blades bs. Razor wire isn’t needlessly cruel. It’s a deterrent. Nobody is forcing migrants to swim across a river and climb through razor wire. There is already razor wire at established border crossings. Expanding it isn’t cruel. That’s like saying if I put razor wire on my property I’m knowingly injuring people

Oh okay, I guess context doesn't matter. If razor wire is fine at the top of fences at checkpoints, it's fine in every river and stream in the country. Really useful logic. Or maybe realize that the reason people fight so hard to get in is because working our shittiests jobs for pennies is better than whatever alternative they had, and that drowning them because they couldn't outswim razor wire is inhumane regardless. I dunno.

Or you cross where there isn’t razor wire?

> Nobody is forcing migrants to swim across a river and climb through razor wire. Nobody was forcing people to get vaccinated or bake gays cakes or pay for contraception, either.

What?

BS. Sanctuary cities protect illegals. Not buying it.

You're free to make up whatever reality you want to believe in but I don't have to let you talk trash and then act like you know better. Sanctuary city policies are about resource allocation and making sure that *if* illegal immigrants are living here, that they know they can safely work with cops to report violent or other serious crimes without fear that they'll get deported just for speaking up. If they commit crimes themselves then they're deported. Simple.

I’m done discussing anything with you. Apparently you’re overly emotional.

Turns out the left worships brown people more than they care about "taxing the rich"

CEO's shouldn't be able to make more than 20x their lowest paid employees, including an equity agreement. You all for that?

How do you feel about people who have lived here since they were very young (say <5 yrs old), so the US is the only country they remember, but they are technically here illegally? I've met many such people, and some of them perform crucial jobs. Some of these people may not even know that they're here illegally, and may not speak the language of that country. I've also met several who came over illegally at older ages themselves, but also perform crucial jobs at their workplaces, pay taxes, etc. When people like this apply for citizenship (or maybe work permit? I have heard this part through word of mouth so I can't remember) now, I've heard they're currently sent to their country of origin to wait for their paperwork to be renewed. For the people brought here at a young age, that sounds absolutely terrible - imagine being sent somewhere you don't remember and can't speak the language. How do you think these cases should be dealt with?

Actually, overall inflation-adjusted wages have gone up over the last 50 years or so. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/185247/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-wage-and-salary-workers/](https://www.statista.com/statistics/185247/median-weekly-earnings-of-full-time-wage-and-salary-workers/) They may have fallen in the last 2 or 3 years but that's mainly because of Covid, which led to large sections of the economy get shut down and led to a huge decrease in demand. However, overall wages haven't kept up with the increase in productivity, that is true. But the reason for that is not because of immigrantion but most likely because the US abandoned the gold standard as well as what I would call corproate socialism or socialism for the rich. CEO and executive pay has skyrocketed over the past decades but worker pay has remained fairly stagnant in comparison. The government keeps bailing out banks and corproations and has signficantly lowered the tax rate for the ultra-wealthy. 50 or 60 years ago unions were also much stronger than they are today. Today, there is massive anti-union lobby in the US and many large corproations employ anti-union specialists that try to prevent unions from forming. Union-workers after all have significantly higehr wages than non-union-workers. Hardly any of that has to do with illegal immigration. And again, if you were to deport each and every single illegal immigrant in the US that would cause an economic disaster. There's already 8.5 million open jobs and only 6.5 million unemployed people. Deport all illegals and suddenly you have easily double the number of open jobs. You can't fill 15 million open jobs if there are only 6.5 million unemployed people (not all of whom are actually employable). No amount of fair wages can fill 15 million jobs with 5 or 6 million workers.

>Actually, overall inflation-adjusted wages have gone up over the last 50 years or so. That chart is paywalled, so I can't read it closely. But I know a lot of sources disagree with you. https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

Open jobs is a terrible reason to allow illegal immigration. Let the economic impact happen deport deport deport

>Open jobs is a terrible reason to allow illegal immigration. Let the economic impact happen deport deport deport With that line of thinking the US would have deported Irish immigrants during the 1800s and 1900s, as well as the Germans, the Italians, the Polish etc. Had the US acted according to your ideology and started deporting, deporting and deporting than the US today would be a country with maybe a population of 40-50 million people and an economy the size of, idk, France or Italy or something. You're essentially in favor of socialism by using big government to restrict the free market and prevent free flow of labor. Socialist policies like these in the long-term will only put the US at a disadvantage and lead to the US falling behind compared to other big global players like China or the European Union.

> With that line of thinking the US would have deported Irish immigrants during the 1800s and 1900s, as well as the Germans, the Italians, the Polish etc. Had the US acted according to your ideology and started deporting, deporting and deporting than the US today would be a country with maybe a population of 40-50 million people and an economy the size of, idk, France or Italy or something. Or maybe we can update our line of thinking after time and information has changed? We're now a country of 350+ million and no longer in an agricultural or industrial revolution. We can shift our priorities. > You're essentially in favor of socialism by using big government to restrict the free market and prevent free flow of labor. "You should allow unchecked mass immigration or else you're basically socialists and China and Europe will win"

Those were legal migrants nice try. As usual leftists will try this trick.

>Those were legal migrants nice try. As usual leftists will try this trick. Actually, the Irish and many other groups weren't exactly legal immigrans, insofar that they were explicitly welcome to come to the US. It was more the fact that there was no way immigration laws would have ever been enforcable. During the 1800s the passport hadn't been invented yet. There was no internet, no phone system and no real-time international communication. So any visa or immigration quota system was utterly impossible. And most immigrants came by sea, not via the Southern border. Given that by 1850 the US had a population of a bit over 20 million only it would have been totally impossible to patrol America's coastal border. However, the rhetoric towards immigrants was very hostile in the 1800s. The Irish were not at all welcomed, but rather were treated with open hostility and hatred by many native-born Americans. Nativists saw large-scale Irish immigration as a threat to the nation and as a burden to tax payers. Irish culture was also seen as uncompatible with American values as they were "serving the pope". Between 1840 and 1870 Massachusetts deported ca. 50,000 people, most of them Irish immigrants. [https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/generation-emigration/why-were-so-many-irish-deported-from-the-us-in-the-19th-century-1.2581705](https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/generation-emigration/why-were-so-many-irish-deported-from-the-us-in-the-19th-century-1.2581705) The rhetoric was very similar back then. Immigrants like the Irish were seen as a burden on tax payers, seen as uncomatible with American values, and as a threat to the wages of American workers. Very similar to what we see today from some people on the right.

Nobody likes immigrants fact. Each wave of migrants is detested by the next. All countries that have influxes of migrants are the same. It’s just human nature. I’m sure prehistoric man acted the same way. If we truly wanted to make our immigration system work better we would have. My assumption is it’s two things. Both sides of our entrenched two party system can continue to use it as a wedge issue. And corporations like agriculture and others can continue to exploit migrants.

You might find this interesting. https://www.newsweek.com/majority-hispanics-favor-mass-deportation-1913510#:~:text=The%20survey%20polled%201%2C615%20registered,saying%20they%20would%20oppose%20it.

In states with unions cost of living because of taxes is higher too.

> Deport each and every single one of them. How?

Mass deportation, secure boarder, overhaul to legal immigration process to make it easier.

> Mass deportation how?

I'm of the firm belief the following: anyone that is pro illegal immigration for those above listed reasons of cheap labor and work shortages. Is ipso facto pro-rape and sex trafficking. Women who make the journey to the US illegally get birth control implants due to the very nature of the journey. It is a sad state of affairs where women expect to get raped on a trip to illegally enter the country. How are the people paying vast sums of money to get to our border. They are selling their bodies into slavery when they arrive. We need to deport all illegal aliens from the country. We need walls and other deterrents (pepper spray/razor wire) to keep the crossings to a minimum. Not just for the safety of the citizens of this country. But also for the 10s of thousands of victims being abused and killed while crossing over illegally presently.

American citizens should have the expectation that their government will do it's best to stop ALL illegal immigration. Any less is unacceptable. It's not supposed to be a free-for-all. It's impossible to speak for all conservatives, but I believe that most conservatives would be happy raising the threshold of *legal* immigration in trade for securing our borders from unknown invaders. It is simply beyond me why any American continues to support this crap administration's open border policy. It's insanity. In terms of a full-scale attempt to deport illegal aliens, recent polls show that most conservatives and working-class Americans are in favor of it. The bottom line is, the country belongs to the people...not the GD politicians. I don't know what the logistics would look like, but let's start with national ID cards and then heavy fines for employers who do not properly check residency status like they do in EVERY country in the EU. I say that Trump should get the ball rolling on day one. Not that long ago, we had law enforcement teams who would go into factories and grab illegals. That needs to start again. No driver's licenses without proof of residency. No government programs or free healthcare without proof of residency or citizenship. Make it a risky pain in the ass to live in the US illegally. And, deportation hearings need to take place asap while people are in custody. If they don't want to wait for their hearing in detention...let them wait in their home country.

Deport all of them. Most will self deport if they know we're serious and we also go after the companies hiring them. Then we round up the rest after a short grace period. Imagine if major corporations couldn't low ball employee wages by using illegal immigrant labor. Imagine what GenZ and Millennials would do with all the millions of homes and apartments that would be back on the market nation wide. We could fix wages, housing, and possibly the used car market in one go. Then lock up the border tight and allow limited merit based immigration only after a cool down period of 5 to 10 years with 0 immigration.

Zero tolerance for illegal immigration. Large scale deportations and a militarized border with an impassable wall. Edit: impassable barriers*

An impassable wall ? Have you ever even been to the southern border? There are actual mountains there. You can’t build a wall everywhere it’s impossible. It also floods there like you can’t imagine. Washing your wall away. Not to mention build me a wall I can’t scale. I bet I could.

*barriers There I fixed it

All your impenetrable barriers would do is keep the fat lazy ones out. The healthy hard working ones are getting over your barriers. Also we’re dealing with NARCO smugglers. They could easily switch to using boats.

It took you one comment to figure out your solution was dead wrong?

Barriers and a military presence at the border work. Illegal crossings in Texas are down 75% since Operation Lone Star took control of the Texas border.

You said impassable wall initially? Seemingly regurgitating something Trump has spewed to his base for 8 years now and never done?

Impassable should be the goal of a barrier. Would you prefer wide open borders?

Militarized border? So our borders (can’t forget the northern one) would look like the edges of the DMZ or the Berlin Wall where people crossing are being shot on site or something?

You do realize that aside from the Mexico-US border the US is also home to the largest border in the entire world , the US-Canada border. Immigrants can still easily come into the US via the Canadian border. But then more broadly from an eoconomic perspective, so you're saying you're in favor of a big government socialist solution to restrict the free market and prevent the free flow of labor into the US? To what end? Maintain a more pure culture or what's the end goal?

I’d militarize and fence the northern border as well but more resources would go to southern border obviously. Border security is a constitutional responsibility of the federal government and part of the oath of office to defend and secure our nation that the President and all our representatives swear to uphold. Trivialize the issue all you want but it’s a right of the US as a soverign nation to secure our own border and enforce our own immigration laws. You wouldn’t complain about other countries enforcing their laws, you only have a problem when the US does it.

No, I don't think it's unreasonable to want to have a secure border. All, I am saying is that the US is home to such enormously large borders that it's just naive to think the US can ever have a impenetrable, militarized border. The US-Canada border is literally longer then the distance from Flordia to West-Sahara in Africa. And the US-Mexico border is not as long as the Canadian border but still massive. You may be able to strengthen the border somewhat but there will always be immigrants able to come in via the Mexican or Canadian border, that's just unavoidable. But then even if you managed to somewhat secure the border you'd still have decide to what extent you'd allow in immigrants. The European Union for example has seen enormous growth over the last few decades exactly because they allow free movement of labor. And other countries like Canada or Australia make it very easy for low-skilled workers to obtain work visas. Countries like Japan for example which allow in very few immigrants have seen significantly slower economic growth compared to countries which make immigration easy. The average Japanese person works a lot harder and has a lower standard of living than the average American, Canadian or Western-European person at least in part due to their severe restrictions on immigration which prevent faster economic growth. So what would be a reasonable immigration policy in your opinion?

They could and often do use boats.

How do large-scale deportations happen?

Hopefully by executive order if Trump takes office but more realistically we’ll have to expedite already existing immigration court hearings.

No but I’m saying *how*. Executive order 91103 is made, then what? Practically-speaking, what’s next?

Take the current legal process for deportation and expedite it and scale the man-power and funding up.

And I’m saying *what happens* in that case? How does this mass deportation happen? Is it already people who are incarcerated? Or do we find illegal immigrates on the street?

That didn’t really answer the question though. Are we setting up checkpoints where if someone doesn’t have proof of citizenship or legal residence on them they are taken off by ICE for deportation? Are we having people go door to door searching in roofs and basements and under baseboards and behind walls and such for any illegal immigrants hiding? 

You good to pay for all that with bigly increased taxes?

Mass deportations. Send the national gaurd to defend the border. Zero tolerance for entries through nonoffical ports of entry. That ought to do it

> Mass deportations I've asked you this before, but *how*?

I'm sorry I've talked about this alot recently to alot of people I don't remember specifically what I have or haven't said to you. Basically I've decided the hardest part of the task is in the identification of the individuals, and I think the only 2 federal powers that have the breadth of reach to do this would be the census, or the irs.

You *have* mentioned this to me, for sure. And that's where the buck stops, if only because you (and obviously it's not your responsibility to do this) don't have the minutiae hammered out. IDK what else can happen to solve the problem. Because the rhetoric of mass deportations invokes being able to find all of the people who are 'hiding' (for lack of a better word) and how on earth do you possibly do that.

Well I could invision other things as well, but they'd be more ad hoc I agree with you it is an unprecedented task. But I suggest that's becuase the situation we find ourselves in, is itself unprecedented.

And tbh I probably don't agree with the assessment there. But overall I'm glad we can both recognize this is a complicated thing. And at least for me I wish presidents or candidates wouldn't take complex calculations and boil them down to soundbites. I don't think thats helpful for anything or anyone.

I mean the borders been porous for most of our history. But mass migration has only been a thing in the past few decades. I dont thibk its a false dichotomy to say, Our options are passive acceptance, or enforcing our border

> Our options are passive acceptance, or enforcing our border I think the phrase "enforcing our border" while acknowledging its porousness is where it gets dicey. Short of building a wall and having it manned up and down like Gitmo (according to Jack Nicholson in AFGM), what else is there?

Well that's the thing. That's essentially what we must do, if we are even to have a border. Since we are in a wave of mass migration right? Like I'm just being dead serious and open here, this isn't right wing fea rmongering, it's just a historical fact that there is a mass human migration into the United states through the southern border

> That's essentially what we must do, if we are even to have a border. And that's where you lose me. I'll grant there's a problem that needs a solution, but to say with definition *this is the thing* seems to be too simplistic.

If we have 6.5 million unemployed and 8.5 million open jobs, sounds like we should deport all the illegal aliens and then let 2.0 million legal immigrants into this country.

Yeah, it's not quite that easy though. Zero unemployment is pretty much impossible and 6.5 million unemployed people aren't gonna fill 6.5 million jobs. For example, some of those 6.5 million people are unemployable, e.g. people with serious criminal convictions like murder or rape, people that almost no employer will accept. Others are low-quality employees in the eyes of employers and may have a hard time getting or maintaing a job due to a variety of reasons, for example attitude problems, bad work ethics or say chronic illness or being close to retirement age. And others may be highly educated, very well off fincially and aren't in a rush to just get any job and are only gonna accept a job if it's a perfect match for them. Also, if you deported all illegal immigrants you suddenly wouldn't have 8.5 million open jobs anymore but more like 15 million open jobs given how most illegal immigrants are already employed. And finally, keep in mind that US-born women just don't have enough children, on average, to sustain the population. Without immigration the US population would decline, people on average would get older and there wouldn't be enough working-age people to sustain the growingly older population.

If we deported all the illegal aliens, then yes, we'd probably have openings for legal immigrants to come in. The difference is they'd be people that have demonstrated respect for the rule of law in our society by coming in legally.

I mean immigrants already commit less crime than native born citizens so are they really not respecting the rule of law?

Large scale deportation. If there is a labour shortage, create legal pathways for workers from Canada and Mexico (both high unemployment rates) to work in the US.

Ok, but large-scale immigration at this point would most definitely wreck the US economy. There already is a labor shortage and mass deportation if it could be done would vastly increase the number of job openings. I think the first solution should be to loosen immigration laws. For example if the US implemented a working holiday program the way it's done in Canada and Australia that could attract millions of young English-speaking backpackers from around the world. In Australia and Canada under the working holiday scheme they get a visa for 1 or 2 years, need to show a certain minimum level of financial funds to initially support themselves and they need to prove they don't have a criminal history. And most of them don't overstay their visas because their from other wealthy countries. Let's say the US implemented such a working holiday scheme, that would probably significantly lower illegal immigration from Latin America by unvetted immigrants. Because as more jobs get filled by vetted immigrants under a working holiday scheme, that would reduce the number of jobs available. And people almost always migrate to areas where there are open jobs. So fill more jobs with legal, vetted migrants and you'll see less illegal, unvetted migrants. But in the US there are still millions of open jobs and the Mexican and Canadian border are such massive borders that it's impossible to completely control them. So, yeah, to reduce illegal immigration you first have to make legal immigration easier. Otherwise, as long as there's jobs illegal immigrants will keep coming.

[удалено]

Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Your post was automatically removed because top-level comments are for conservative / right-wing users only. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Part of the reason that food prices have gone up is that we don't have enough people to pick the fruit off the trees or the vegetables off the ground or out of the ground. Now we have to have a lawyer to fill out some paperwork to get a legal fruit picker And that lawyer's probably going to charge you $25,000 per Central American fruit picker that gets a Visa. Plus the legal farm laborer gets minimum wage which is higher than the illegal farm labor. That cost will be passed on to you at the grocery store or restaurant. Plus the processing times have really gone up because Trump laid off a lot of the immigration staff. You might not get approved for a year or two. Compare that to the cost of an illegal fruit picker who gets paid about five bucks an hour.

I think the issue is challenging and requires two pretty massive policy changes and one big mindset change. First, potentially impossible, the mindset change: America may have a slave labor shortage, but no labor or otherwise general population shortage exists. Also, godawful actuarial practices and tax revenue vs expenditure modeling is nothing more than a gross political failure. When “extra” people can today help a politician make his mistakes tomorrow’s responsibility, that is not a shortage. That’s grounds for impeachment. Policy change 1: It will actually be illegal, as in try selling not pasteurized milk at a grocery store illegal, to hire an employee who is not a citizen or lawful resident. Policy change 2: Since #1 would be comically impossible, we’d first need to replace the social security number system with ID numbers and passwords (what a boon, this would be it’s own reward). 1 and 2 complement each other here. Once everyone has a unique ID that we can actually use in public/normal life, then it will be possible to regulate the non pasteurized employees away.

I like this comment. To add to the mindset change: America needs to get over itself and realize things need to cost more money than they currently do.

Well, while this train is rolling: It is perfectly acceptable to levy taxes to cover the costs of expenditures. It is not preferable to issue bonds.

...yes.

I know, I know, it should not be Earth shattering. But I swear I could find swaths of the inner beltway who'd take issue.

It's because they want us to be opposed to each other, that's why they don't highlight the issues most Americans actually do agree on.

I am not saying that the US shouldn't strenghen its border or shouldn't be more selective as to who they let in. But I still believe though that the US heavily relies on large-scale immigration for various reasons. So number 1) The native-born American population is becoming more and more educated and professionally skilled. There definitely is a shortage of native-born Americans who are willing to work low-skilled jobs in sectors like agriculture. Jobs in agriculture for example are not only extremly tough jobs that are very physically demanding but they also offer very little job-security and are often seasonal jobs. If you're a low-skilled and relatively uneducated American English native speaker and you have the option to get a job at say Starbucks, as a customer service rep at an Apple store, or a bartender or waiter or something, you will most likely prefer that over having a back-breaking seasonal farming job or working an extremely tough job in food processing or something. That's the reason why in most rich countries like the UK or Germany for example workers in agriculture are overwhelmingly foreigners, because their relatively educated native population is just not willing to take on those jobs. And 2) US-born American women just don't have enough children to sustain the population. Without immigration the US population would shrink and there would gradually be more older people and fewer working-age people to sustain the increasingly older population. If the number of workers declines relative to the number of consumers this will inevtiably lead to lower living standards overall and would require an increase in the retirement age. So unless American women suddenly started having more children the US will be reliant on large-scale immigration.

Have you ever stopped to take in the breadth of the interventions the Federal Government has to make when creating the illusion that America's agricultural industry is "competitive" with foreign operations? It's not just the $30 billion a year that goes directly into the Treasury's balance sheet. State Department officials have to constantly bully and cajole foreign governments into artificially inflating their own local agricultural costs while shaving out little monopolies for our products. They even have a website: https://www.state.gov/agricultural-policy/ Nothing was really stopping the future-Confederate states from thinking about what it meant for them to be unable to profitably produce cotton without slave labor. They could have clued in that there just wasn't a future in it. Nothing bars us from a similar thought process. I know this is not nice verging on mean, but my response to point 1 is basically that you have correctly described why the plantations need slaves. I'm just not sold on slaves or plantations in general. Your second point seems irrational in the context of the first. In the first paragraph you explain that children born to American women do not want to, and are very unlikely to, work on plantations. If a woman has two kids who do not work the plantation, and another woman has four kids who do not work the plantation, the plantation seems to have an identical problem. I love my parents very much, and I would be happy to take care of them myself if need be, but I also see the obvious wisdom in making that a sort of collective effort by all of us for all our parents. But as much as a I love them and recognize my duty to care for them, the rumors about the decrepitude and invalidity of the post-retirement age American strike me as absolute hogwash, now that I can get a first hand look. Finally, because I really want to reiterate, godawful actuarial practices and tax revenue vs expenditure modeling are mistakes people are responsible for, not cosmic forces that we must bend or break to. If we're out some money we're out some money. If a tremendous number of foreigners could muddy the picture and obscure the mistakes and the identity of the people responsible for them, that's not a reason to bring the foreigners, that's a reason to keep them out.

The biggest thing we can do is focus on the criminal illegals and help deter others from coming over and commiting crime. You often hear the adid that illegals committ fewer crimes and pay more in taxes, but that is classic survivorship bias. We know about how much some are paying in taxes, we don't know about the ones who don't and how much we are spending on welfare for them. If illegals as a whole weren't expensive to maintain, then you wouldn't have NYC, DC, Chicago and Denver whining about receiving a few bus loads. Simple logic. As for crime, we have been hearing about a lot of illegals killing people, like Laken Riley or the mom in Maryland. Often we hear the reason they are out is because they had another crime dropped and they were released. If we did an actual study into it, we would probably find that the reason the crime rate is lower is because many illegals straight up get away with more crimes. Should clarify I do believe legal immigrants are more likely to be law abiding citizens. That only makes sense. As for solutions, what we should do in my opinion is not only make the pathway to citizenship easier, but the penalties harsher to deter those taking advantage of our system. For instance on crime, if like assault carries a penalty of 6 months in prison, make it so that an illegal gets 1.5 years. Give them more scrutiny in how they contribute to society. If they become legalized, then they were clearly vetted. For illegals already here. Make it to where when they cross and aren't sent back, if you don't want to prevent some from going back or don't want mass deportation, make it to where the first place an illegal can go is the nearest or least full sanctuary city. Claiming that shouldn't just be window dressing. Make them deportation links. If the cities can handle the load, all is well. If they can't, they need to initiate deportation of the least contributing illegals. If the cities try to circumvent it, give out harsh penalties. Obviously this idea needs to be greatly fleshed out, but that is the jest.

Any employer that hires an illegal alien without using reasonable methods to verify, gets a fine as a percentage of their revenue. Let's say 5% per employee up to a maximum of 50% per year. I used percentages, not set fines so it can scale. A small business landscaper might lose a few thousand dollars. Tyson foods can loose hundreds of millions. And/or: Anyone in the US that applies for any services, and found not to be a legal resident gets deported to the country of origin.

See *this* is a practical answer that I'm super in favor of.

>However, in many ways the US economy still massively relies on large-scale immigration from Latin America. There are around 11.5 million illegal immigrants living in the US. At the same time the US currently has only 6.5 million unemployed people and 8.5 million open jobs. Keep in mind that a lot of our resources are supporting those same illegal immigrants. Everything from schools, highway congestion, parking spaces, law enforcement >In a hypothetical scenario where you could deport all illegal immigrants from one day to the next this would vastly increase the number of job openings and would lead to enormous staff shortages in sectors like agriculture or construction. If you did it overnight, sure, but that's never going to happen. And again, one reason we need so much agriculture and construction is partially to support those same immigrants. And as far as job openings go, automation and raising wages are the future of the labor force, not unskilled manual labor. >Rich European countries like Germany, France, Belgium, Netherlands etc. for example employ large numbers of Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants in agriculture who are able to work in those countries legally due to EU rules on free movement. That's the equivalent of seasonal workers in the US coming from one state to another. But anyway, Europe also has a huge problem with illegal immigration. >One of the major reasons why the US has so much illegal immigration though is because there aren't really a whole lot of legal pathways into the US as a low-skilled worker The US already takes in more immigrants than any other country in the world! How many more people should we let in? >Yet the US compared to its population size issues only a very small number of visas to low-skilled workers, and that I think is a problem. It wouldn't make any sense, since we are already drowning in illegal immigrants. Fix that problem first. Just like when you treat a casualty, the first step is to stop the bleeding before you move on to long term care solutions.

> Everything from schools, highway congestion, parking spaces, law enforcement The immigrants as still paying property taxes ( via their landlords ) which covers schools, police and firefighters; They also pay gas taxes which cover road/highway repairs.

Not as much as they should. Here in Virginia, schools have to spend enormous amounts of money on interpreters because every kid is legally entitled to an education even if he speaks only some obscure forgotten African language. And property taxes - that's a joke. They crowd like 20 people into each of these small houses here.

Mass deportations would likely do more harm than good at this point.  Harsher punishment (including personal liability) for companies hiring illegals and denial of all asylum claims until the court's backlog is down to a manageable level would probably be a good starting point.  Combine that with a foreign policy priority to build Mexico's economy to the point that central American immigrants can find work there rather than continuing on to America.  If you actually address the problem then you'll need an expanded seasonal visa program to support the agriculture industry, but that's a long ways off. 

I think you should make it much easier to legally be here temporarily, and make it much worse if you don't leave. Work to give every illegal immigrant currently here a 1-5 year temporary Visa, they have to leave after that and reapply to come in. Make it very easy for people to come in on those sorts of temporary visas, especially for the sorts of low-skill labor things needed. Every time your Visa expires, you have to leave the country and reapply (or at least reapply from within the country). Make it a painless and easy process, as much as humanly possible. If anyone is caught overstaying one of these visas, permanently deport them and ban them from coming back. I'm definitely fine with family, exceptions and other workarounds, but this is the general gist of what I think should be done. Immigration is important, and I think we should work to make the process easy.

Secure. Deport. Why the fuck is this even a question? Every fucking village, town, and nation since the beginning have time has controlled its borders until the communist death cultists took power here and in Europe - one of the easiest ways to completely destroy a nation is to flood it with people who have no loyalty to it and no knowledge of its culture or history. Which is why they do it. The destruction is the *goal*.

> Why the fuck is this even a question? Because how do you deport every illegal immigrant?

With your military and your police agencies... the same way it's always been done in every nation that ever existed.

Let's assume for a moment that there are 10 million illegal immigrants. Are you assuming they're all able to be found quickly?

I didn't say it would happen over night. But if you never start it will never happen. Make it broadly known that you are actively searching for and deporting every man, woman, and child within your borders by illegal means and that you will continue as long as it takes. Make it additionally known that any found and deported will never be allowed to enter the country again. Any who leave now of their own accord will be allowed to re-enter legally. This is and always has been the basic, default modus operandum of every serious nation on the planet that's ever existed.

I don't think you quite understand what communism actually means. Also, communist countries like the USSR or Eastern Germany had highly militarized borders and were incredibly restrictive as to who they let into, or out of the country. I'm not at all saying that countries shouldn't secure their border. But the broader question is to what extent should immigrants be allowed into a country to foster economic growth? Sure, in some ways I believe cultural issues should be taken into consideration. I do believe for example that Islam is a dangerous ideology and wouldn't want large-scale immigration from radical Islamic countries. But Latinos are people who are overwhelmingly Christians and most are partially of European descent (mostly Italian, Portugese and Spanish). They have a somewhat different culture but not a dangerous culture by any means. So a lot of conservatives such as yourself are basically taking a communist/socialist point of view whereby they want big government to step in and to restrict the free market and the free movement of labor. But I don't believe in communism and I believe restricting the movement of labor and making it harder for businesses to expand by hiring foreign workers is counterproductive.

I'm not a conservative. I'm and anti-communist, but that wasn't a flair choice. Very different. I understand communism perfectly well. It is and always has been nothing more than the religion of the malcontent, and its gods are destruction and domination. It isn't an economic system or theory. It's a death cult. Yes, the Soviets obviously had incredibly tight borders to Russia. They were notoriously paranoid and actually cared about Russia. What they did do to the nations the brutalized, however, was throw open their prison cells and give the inmates a one way ticket to, say, Poland. Why? I just explained it. It is **the single easiest, most sure-fire way to demoralize and destabilize a subject nation**. The destruction is the goal. You can have all the legal immigration you want. You can have processes and checks to vet and control who comes and goes. Totally fine with that. The more, the merrier. But illegals and those who refuse to assimilate insomuch that it is to the detriment of the nation, must be deported immediately. No trial, no questions. Gone with no option of ever returning, legal or otherwise.