Do you think that all illegals should be deported?

[°Leprechaun]

Seven day poll.

No, I don't think it is practical to deport 10-11 million people, however "right" it may be as
far as the fact that being a so called "illegal" means there is no inherent "right" to live here.
Will this break up families?
How much will it cost? If Trump is the nominee can he win the latino/hispanic vote with this plan?
Can he possibly win the election?
Do Republicans seriously think that this will not be used by the Democrat (Ms Clinton) to win the election against him?
You can change your vote if you change your mind.
Suppose Trump does become POTUS. Will he be able to accomplish this? Why hasn't he changed his mind? Trump is leading in most states, but given that the vote is split between so many candidates, does his tie with Carson near 25% for both more or less, really indicate that there is any possibility that he will win. It will be interesting how close we get to the CA primary without a clear single leader. If there is no clear winner before CA, it will be interesting tio see who wins CA. No I also don't think we will be living in the SNL Utopia by 2018.

[°Leprechaun]

Why should we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to try to deport 3% of our population, many of which do no harm to the average person? Instead, deport violent criminals and drug dealers while other illegals who pass a background check and pay a fine can stay.

That seems reasonable.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[°Leprechaun]

No, because it's literally impossible, but I disagree with the prevailing notion that it's some kind of unreasonable position. In principle, at least, suggesting that illegal immigrants be deported is not particularly controversial.

If it's impossible, why suggest it in the first place?

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

How would law enforcement against tax evasion be prohibitively different from law enforcement against international trespassing?

What I am talking about is deporting all illegals, not some illegals.

[°Leprechaun]

I hope everyone who votes no supports abolishing the IRS, since after all it is impossible for the government to possibly confiscate the paychecks of 100 million working people. I also hope everyone who votes no never complains about the free rider problem when advocating against privatization of public goods, since it is difficult to conceive of a more prototypical example of a free rider than one who enters a country and makes use of its public services without paying their way in.

I hope everyone who votes yes realizes how expensive such and endeavor would be; how impractical and how politically impossible such an endeavor would be. To vote 'no' is not to say that people should come here illegally, although making legal immigration easier might be part of the solution, and would it not be cheaper that building a wall? I don't think that these kind of pie in the sky proposals make any sense or how anyone who makes them expects to be taken seriously.

"The murder rate in Chicago is too high, but it is not politically feasible to advocate more police. Imagine how expensive that could be? Since homocide investigation is very costly, we should just grant amnesty to anyone who may have committed murder in the past (maybe have them pay a small fine?) Why don't we just widen the definition of self-defense, after all that would be cheaper than incarcerating hundreds of murderers? Pie in the sky proposals like enforcing the law are not meant to be taken seriously."


Seriously though, if the government has the funds to conduct (ostensibly) random audits to make sure everyone pays their taxes, why can they not do the same thing with regard to citizenship? If anything, it should be easier; just passively query people using public services or detained for a crime for their citizenship or visa. That would not require a Gestapo-like entity like the pro-invasion advocates strawmans it to be; at least no more authoritarian than a traffic citation.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

How would law enforcement against tax evasion be prohibitively different from law enforcement against international trespassing?

What I am talking about is deporting all illegals, not some illegals.

Do people talk of tax evasion as being "illegal," or "illegal some of the time"? Is society safer when law enforcement declares they will enforce the law, or when they declare that they probably will not be able to enforce the law most of the time?

What they could say about law enforcement is that they will do the best that they can do relative to the resources given them for doing so.
The politicians talk about issues for years without doing anything or at least not enough. The immigration problem has existed for a long time. In law enforcement, there are plenty of things to impede convicting people for crimes. The US is imprisoning a lot of people, many for nonviolent crimes. Reforming the system doesn't mean letting all murderers go free.
It seems awefully idealist to say that all illegals will be deported. I am using the term illegal, not illegal some of the time. I am talking about the obvious burden of something that is not even necessarily the best solution in the first place. I am talking about something that most people do not think is realistic. It isn't a question of whether these people are here legally or not, of course most of them aren't. It is a question as to what the best solution is.