Subjectivist wrote:If their crime is just ileagal entry I favor deportation, but if they comit any crime from petty theft, welfare fraud right up to premeditated murder I want them to serve a maximum sentence, no early parole, no time off for good behavior. Then throw them out, and if they come back again lock them up for ilegal entry at federal prison in Northern Michigan or Alaska or whatever unpleasently cold climate you have available.
drwater wrote:Cog,
All good points. I think a more fundamental question is whether we (the U.S.) are a nation of laws or not? Should stopping at red lights be optional? If we are a nation of laws, then all illegals need to be deported. We can set criteria and numeric limits for letting many of them back in if we choose, subject to some of your other considerations.
Cog wrote:There have been a number of ICE deportations going on in the major cities as of late. Concentrating on the felons.
Newfie wrote:Cog,
As usual you have a decent argument.
However I am reminded of a position Ibon took sometime ago and his proposition. I'm sure I won't recall it correctly or with his eloquence but it sort of ran like this........
For too long forces in the USA, of both political persuasions, have encouraged illegal immigration. If not by outright support then by failure to act to secure our borders. Basically we wanted them to do me I tasks and to be a neck indentured servant, someone we could bully and threaten with deportation of they didn't comply. We, through our incompetent and cheroot political leadership are largely responsible for the approximately 11 million illegals within our borders.
So the proposal is that we do a one time amnesty to all illegals, without felony convictions, and make them citizens. Gowing forward we then strictly enforce our borders and immigration policies. No more allowing folks to overstay their visas. No sanctuary cities/states. Nix.Anyway that's how I remember his proposal.
To this, from MY perspective, I would add this. The Federal Government requires each state to prepare a development plan that states the target population for that state and how it intends to achieve that population by when. Each state gets to decide if they have enough folks or if they need more and if the additional population will come from internal breeding or from stealing another states population or from external immigration. Then the Federals set the rules for becoming a citizen.
So if California wants to grow an additional 30 million and wants them all to be Mexican immigrants fine. But then there will be a perms ate cap on California's population, not to exceed ever present+30 million. If they exceed then we go to LIFO, Last In First Out. If the have P+31 then the last 1 million immigrants need to go back. No ifs ands or buts.
This would cause the USA to set some peak population level, say 500 million, that could never be exceeded. It would make it a State wide discussion where folks would have to think about whether they wanted grandkids or immigrants. It would bring the discussion to the family dining table where it should be. The Feds would be out of the argument, let the states hash it out.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
pstarr wrote:Cog wrote:There have been a number of ICE deportations going on in the major cities as of late. Concentrating on the felons.
You sound like Tea Partier. I'll bet you were?
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests