Should undocumented [[illegal) immigrants have drivers license privilege?

[archfan]

Taking your comment in the light of ironic humor, you rare probably correct.

Democrats + Chamber of Commerce Republicans = majority for open borders

Two points:
1. Yes, ironic and pointed, because a majority in this country should mean the will of the people.

2. Really, do you meet a lot of people who say yes, send the border patrol home and let everyone in? Because I haven't. Someone can want the US to have a controlled border while at the same time wanting to treat people humanely and to come up with solutions rather than using immigration as a way to stir up voters.

[Zacha341]

^^^ Yep... too often it is put forth that if you want a controlled border you're racist, xeno, etc.

Trumps comments and rhetoric have helped feed into that.

But he'll not be president forever and the edgy policies set forth now will be with us for a long time.

[oladub]

Two points:
1. Yes, ironic and pointed, because a majority in this country should mean the will of the people.

2. Really, do you meet a lot of people who say yes, send the border patrol home and let everyone in? Because I haven't. Someone can want the US to have a controlled border while at the same time wanting to treat people humanely and to come up with solutions rather than using immigration as a way to stir up voters.

I was hoping that the will of the people was at least represented in Congress and laws it passes. You might be confusing mob rule, plutocratic campaign funding and anarchy with Constitution law which says that Congress is delegated with establishing uniform naturalization laws. The Constitution also says that the federal government has a duty to defend our borders from invasion. If illegal non-citizens can ignore posted immigration signs, I want to at least be able to violate laws of my choosing; maybe go through red lights when I don't see anyone coming or pay all my taxes. Others might want to be vigilantes. That's worse.

In the final scene of Romeo and Juliet, the Prince blames himself for letting things get out of hand "And I for winking at your discords too have lost a brace of kinsmen. All are punished".

Over 100,000 illegal non-citizens a month were being captured by the border patrol in recent months and the border patrol estimates it catches about 54% of illegal border crossers. An estimated 11M illegal non-citizens live and work in the U.S.. That number never seems to change even with 100,000 people sneaking across the border monthly. Policies that allow that do let that many people in. The solution is to enforce our laws, elect representatives who do so and stop incentivizing illegal non-citizens from coming here. This pandering, in turn, leads to incarcerations, drownings, and rapes along the journey. People who incentivize all this discord should accept more responsibility for things getting out of hand.

Caveat: There is a legal way of entering the U.S.. It is expensive, tricky, and time consuming but immigrants who matriculate are treated humanely or at least like other Americans.

[Wesley Mouch]

Two points:
1. Yes, ironic and pointed, because a majority in this country should mean the will of the people.

This is just wrong. Our constitution is designed to prevent simple majorities from making decisions. Its a simple idea. We elect and appoint people to power. They make decisions for us, to reflect our collective will. Protection of minority rights by specifically limiting popular votes is a feature, not a bug.

2. Really, do you meet a lot of people who say yes, send the border patrol home and let everyone in? Because I haven't. Someone can want the US to have a controlled border while at the same time wanting to treat people humanely and to come up with solutions rather than using immigration as a way to stir up voters.

Of course someone can desire controlled border and better execution of border security. However I don't think my ear deceived me that several of the top 20 candidates said clearly that they want to decriminalize border crossing. Is that not an uncontrolled border? Or what am I missing. How would the border patrol control the border if they don't have any legal authority to do so?

[JonWylie]

Of course someone can desire controlled border and better execution of border security. However I don't think my ear deceived me that several of the top 20 candidates said clearly that they want to decriminalize border crossing. Is that not an uncontrolled border? Or what am I missing. How would the border patrol control the border if they don't have any legal authority to do so?

I don't mean to be rude but yes you are very wrong. If you actually listen to the stance about decriminalizing it's basis is that the fact that border crossing is a crime, it gives the US the power to treat people attempting to cross as criminals and thus instituting policies like we see now. Decriminalizing crossing the border does not mean everyone would be let in, because they still would not be a lawful resident of the country. Border patrol would still be in their full right to detain unlawful residents and potentially deport them, but not charging them with a crime, some would argue, would end family separations and some of the policies implemented. None of the candidates want open borders.

[Wesley Mouch]

I don't mean to be rude but yes you are very wrong. If you actually listen to the stance about decriminalizing it's basis is that the fact that border crossing is a crime, it gives the US the power to treat people attempting to cross as criminals and thus instituting policies like we see now. Decriminalizing crossing the border does not mean everyone would be let in, because they still would not be a lawful resident of the country. Border patrol would still be in their full right to detain unlawful residents and potentially deport them, but not charging them with a crime, some would argue, would end family separations and some of the policies implemented. None of the candidates want open borders.

It is never rude to make a polite correction. And I hear what you are saying here. But there is a contradiction between your words that I'd like to ask about -- without being rude!

You say they would still be 'unlawful' residents. But that they would not be charged with a crime. There's an inconsistency in your logic that I'd appreciate some clarification.

Perhaps you mean it would be legal to cross the border, but illegal be 'be' on the US side? Seems like pretty much the same thing.

I do think you are helping me understand the logic of the 'make border crossing legal' campaign pledge.

Yet, I see contradictions that perhaps are by design. We can eliminate family separations, but still 'detain' and 'deport' people? Who wouldn't like that.

[JonWylie]

It is never rude to make a polite correction. And I hear what you are saying here. But there is a contradiction between your words that I'd like to ask about -- without being rude!

You say they would still be 'unlawful' residents. But that they would not be charged with a crime. There's an inconsistency in your logic that I'd appreciate some clarification.

Perhaps you mean it would be legal to cross the border, but illegal be 'be' on the US side? Seems like pretty much the same thing.

I do think you are helping me understand the logic of the 'make border crossing legal' campaign pledge.

Yet, I see contradictions that perhaps are by design. We can eliminate family separations, but still 'detain' and 'deport' people? Who wouldn't like that.

Yeah you're essentially right, and nobody knows exactly what the change would actually do. It would still be illegal to be in the country without proper documentation, and you would be subject to deportation. But it would not be a misdemeanor to cross the border, which means the potential jail time and some say aids in the family separation. Most immigrants are processed under civil deportation. I have no idea what the effect would be.

[archfan]

This is just wrong. Our constitution is designed to prevent simple majorities from making decisions. Its a simple idea. We elect and appoint people to power. They make decisions for us, to reflect our collective will. Protection of minority rights by specifically limiting popular votes is a feature, not a bug.

Yes, you win the debate point. The US is a representational democracy. Nevertheless, if representatives go against the will of the majority of people [[the Democrats+Chamber of Commerce Republicans mentioned above), then the will no longer be the representative after the next election.

Of course someone can desire controlled border and better execution of border security. However I don't think my ear deceived me that several of the top 20 candidates said clearly that they want to decriminalize border crossing. Is that not an uncontrolled border? Or what am I missing. How would the border patrol control the border if they don't have any legal authority to do so?

I think your confusion is in decriminalize crossing vs. allow crossings. Illegal border crossing right now is both a civil offense and a misdemeanor. The civil offense means they can be deported. The misdemeanor means they can be punished.

Decriminalizing means removing the misdemeanor, which means removing the legal basis for punishment. If you believe the punishments have been too [[severe, expensive, inhumane, or whatever), then you support removing the misdemeanor, which means decriminalizing.

I haven't heard anyone advocating removing the civil aspect, which means CBP would have the legal authority to capture and deport people illegally crossing the border.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
I haven't heard anyone advocating removing the civil aspect, which means CBP would have the legal authority to capture and deport people illegally crossing the border.

I listened to the debates. What I heard was 'decriminalize'. That means 'no apprehensions' to me.

If the only concern was 'family separations', its easy enough to say that. But that's not what was said.

So I feel like this is a BS issue. Its just Orange Man bad. And the 'criminal vs. civil' argument is self-justification. The candidates want to 'resist' Trump. Obama was deporter-in-chief. That's all forgotten as long as we have an issue to beat up on President Trump. Family Separations on borders around the world will be forgotten the moment this isn't politically advantageous. [[Look at Canada for our future. Trudeau tweets 'welcome to Canada'. And then after the financial and political costs of waves of 'illegal' immigrants become an issue, he quietly tightened up the rules, and reminded everyone that most refugee claims are denied in the end. We'll see this issue disappear after Trump's second term.)

[archfan]

I listened to the debates. What I heard was 'decriminalize'. That means 'no apprehensions' to me.

If the only concern was 'family separations', its easy enough to say that. But that's not what was said.

So I feel like this is a BS issue. Its just Orange Man bad.

Then it sounds like you're engaging in 'Blue Candidates Bad' rather than listening to what they're saying.

The original Castro proposal was to repeal Title 8, Section 1325 of the federal code, section [[a) of which makes illegal border crossing a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in jail. That is the law used to jail people who illegally crossing the border, and was the law used to separate families. The Castro proposal leaves in place the civil penalties, under which people who illegally cross the border are deported.

And the 'criminal vs. civil' argument is self-justification. The candidates want to 'resist' Trump. Obama was deporter-in-chief. That's all forgotten as long as we have an issue to beat up on President Trump. Family Separations on borders around the world will be forgotten the moment this isn't politically advantageous.

I've read recently that some folks argue this way because they are cynically pushing immigration issues as a way to scare voters into supporting them. They therefore believe that the other side, equally cynical, doesn't really care about whether illegal immigrants are treated humanely - they're just arguing that way to take the opposite side. They don't leave open the possibility that they genuinely believe people should be treated humanely.

Note that I don't ascribe that attitude to to you, Wes, because you usually seem to want to think rationally about issues, and probably have other reasons for arguing that way.