How Many Americans Really Want Mass Deportation?
Even among Republicans and conservatives, support for the policy comes with caveats.

Before winning the presidential election last month, Donald Trump made immigration and border issues—and particularly his promise to carry out the "largest deportation operation in American history"—a centerpiece of his campaign.
News coverage of polling on mass deportation indicated that large shares of Americans were on board with Trump's plan, which could target between 15 million and 20 million people, per the president-elect's count. Trump's reelection represents a "mandate" from voters "to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail, like deporting migrant criminals," said Karoline Leavitt, a Trump campaign spokesperson, last month. Media interpretations of polling could very well play into the perception of a mandate to conduct large-scale deportations.
But a new survey suggests that Americans' support for mass deportation comes with important—and overlooked—caveats. Sixty percent of Republicans believe that "immigration enforcement should prioritize violent criminals and those with final orders of removal rather than 'all individuals without legal status,'" per a survey from the Bullfinch Group and the National Immigration Forum. Three-quarters of Republicans agreed that "family unity, respect for human dignity, and protection for the persecuted" must be "key priorities" as the government ramps up border security and immigration enforcement.
Overall, "significant majorities of groups" that voted for Trump "want his administration to focus immigration enforcement on threats to public safety rather than cast an unlimited net," the National Immigration Forum observed. The survey was conducted earlier this month among 1,200 adults, including 1,000 registered voters, and found similarly high support for that idea among Democrats, independents, liberals, and moderates.
"We are working with Republicans and Democrats in Congress who understand what Americans are saying here: yes to safety and security, yes to order, and also yes to family unity and compassion," says Jennie Murray, president and CEO of the National Immigration Forum.
When Americans are presented with more nuanced questions about mass deportation than binary yes-or-no ones, and when faced with the potential consequences of that policy, support tends to slip. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they support mass deportation in a postelection survey conducted by Scripps News and Ipsos last month, but that number dropped to 38 percent if it means separating families.
Americans also "remain wary of harsh measures like using detention camps for Trump's promised mass deportation effort," reported Reuters last week. Just 30 percent of respondents to a Reuters/Ipsos poll felt that undocumented immigrants should be kept in detention camps while awaiting deportation hearings. Fifty-three percent disagreed.
It's true that polling on mass deportation sometimes yields seemingly contradictory results. An August 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that while 56 percent of registered voters supported "enforcing mass deportations," 61 percent supported allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the country legally "if certain requirements are met."
In practice, "mass deportation, yes or no?" isn't a terribly useful question. It misses all sorts of important details. How many people should that operation target? Should the U.S. deport longtime nonviolent residents? What about undocumented people supporting U.S. citizen children? What financial and ethical costs would Americans be willing to tolerate?
It's important to tease out those distinctions as a new administration and new Congress prepare to get to work in January. Americans have much more nuanced views on mass deportation than some surveys suggest, and politicians should take note.
"Republican lawmakers have an opportunity to be a voice of reason and lead the conversation on solutions we so clearly need," says Murray. "For the border, on asylum, and for immigrants who are part of our families and communities."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Kind of a useless unmeasureable question. The reality is that not much can happen in four years.
* Only the leftest of lefties will moan about deporting the criminals. But that itself is going to be hard to do. Got to find them, and they won't make that easy. There will be hearings and lawsuits, appeals, reversals, and burrocrats galore. I'll be surprised if even half the criminal illegal immigrants are gone in four years.
* Then there will be tons of blowback trying to deport illegal immigrants who have been living here peacefully for 5 or 10 years, raised a family of born-here citizens, possibly married to a citizen. More lawsuits, burrocrats picking the most sympathetic illegal immigrants to create the most blowback.
What I expect to happen is that within a year, there will be some truly bipartisan legislation to legalize illegals who have been here at least 5 years without causing trouble, and either with native-born children or a native-born wife, and Trump will crow about it and claim (mostly bullshit) that is all he ever wanted and it shows how his policies work (mostly truthfully).
Only the leftest of lefties will moan about deporting the criminals.
While true the propaganda machine will deny they are criminals the the rest of the left will believe them - just as they did for Michael Brown.
The JeffSarc is the commentariat’s version of such discredited propaganda.
Obama had a program to deport people here illegally who had been convicted of serious crimes. On average 200,000 a year were deported. Trump ended that program.
Biden tried to restart it but MAGA lawsuits and MAGA judges tied up the program in the courts. But overall, Biden kicked out more people than Trump, and so did Obama.
'MAGA lawsuits' and 'MAGA judges' stopped criminals who were also illegally present in the country from being deported? That doesn't sound like their typical MO. Do you have a source for that?
Fewer people came in illegally under Trump than Obama and Biden. So, it makes some sense that the raw numbers would reflect that.
They were all actblue donors, don’t you know?
So…. All John Birch conservatives?
I think that this is going to depend a lot on what exactly you mean by that. The military going door to door and taking people away, probably not. Removing known criminals and people here on BS asylum claims is probably a winner though. If they're smart, that's where they will start.
""The military going door to door and taking people away, probably not. "'
I'm going with a hard no.
Going door to door is a lefty fear fantasy. Not going to happen.
You can make a big dent by talking tough, sweeping low hanging fruit, and reversing incentives.
I don't think it is going to happen either. I was just going for extremes of what "mass deportation" might look like.
The military doesn't need to go door to door. The administration just needs to withhold funding from sanctuary cities and states.
This was never about altruism. It's always been about the money.
This, and tightening up the restrictions on who can get a handout.
The Lankford bill would have allowed speedy removal of those with BS asylum claims. Trump ordered Republicans to kill the bill.
LOL
No, it would have dome just the opposite.
Are you lying, or just dumb enough to believe that?
My guess? Both.
Sorry, all that "Lankford Bill" disinformation from the left has been disinfected thoroughly with plenty of sunshine and commentary. Do you think those Golden Gate Bridge nets actually work?
There’s still a bill, passed by the House, sitting in Chuck Schumer’s inbox for two years now that ACTUALLY addressed the immigration problem.
Get fucked.
Ahh. So we should trust the paid survey from Immigration Forum, an activist group, instead of randomly sampled national surveys. And they appear to use leading questions.
This is called desperation.
And even in your questions you show "confusion" on, it is a question on priority of deportation. Not that it shouldn't be done.
Give some examples of how the survey responses differ from "randomly sampled national surveys."
And explain how the questions are "leading."
We'll wait
The pathetic surveys are listed in the comments dumbass. Lol.
Why embarass yourself?
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4885895-mass-deportation-immigration-poll/
https://www.axios.com/2024/04/25/trump-biden-americans-illegal-immigration-poll
https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/path-to-the-white-house/scripps-news-ipsos-poll-majority-supports-mass-deportation-of-undocumented-immigrants
Did I choose enough lefty sources for you dummy?
What this survey does is try to equate door to door and family separation to the issue. But as a leftist who didn't even bother to read the study or the article I'm sure you missed this. Why do you democrats choose embarassment?
Let's get your some more with some sub samples and others.
https://www.newsweek.com/majority-hispanics-favor-mass-deportation-1913510
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-mass-deportation-plan-support-1955874
https://www.yahoo.com/news/polls-show-growing-support-mass-172637105.html
And note none of these polls bring up the costs or added crime while the poll in the article uses an appeal to emotion to try to change the response.
How embarrassing for you.
Nice edit by the way.
It is leading because the questions asked in this poll focusy on emotional additions to the question and apply it to the entire response.
Majority of illegal aliens are young males under 30. Not families. So they utilize the emotional response to change the results. Note the questions don't mention this. Don't mention the 1.5M with final deportation orders. The estimated 1M criminals convicted. Etc.
Do you support deportation is much different than if it will break up families do you support deportation dummy.
If you include only one side of the argument in the question, it is a leading question.
You're just a leftist moron lol.
You can post 3 links now, without being auto-flagged? I thought the limit was 2.
Hell, I can't even post one without the site just straight up throwing away my comment.
"Yeah, well... Not THOSE six examples from lefty outlets!!!"
Fatality. Perhaps you can explain to the Reason staff how a search engine works as well.
Wow that was fast. You could have actually held your breath while JesseAz served your sorry ass. Painful!
What 'randomly sampled national surveys' - those don't exist for anything, ever.
We'll wait.
mass deportation, yes or no?" isn't a terribly useful question.
Thats because it's a campaign slogan. Doubt anyone will notice much difference between Trump 2nd term compared to Trump 1st term or Obama's presidency.
Definite opportunities for bad optics; kicking in doors and pulling children out of their homes [no] vs hog tying gang members and launching over the border via a catapult [yes].
Who cares? It's Trump's 2nd term. DeSantis can disavow him in 2028, or maybe no one will care because we'll all be crypto billionaires!
One time Nick Gillespie told us a majority of Americans can be prompted to agree with a banal assertion like "Immigration is a good thing."
We can therefore conclude the Koch / Reason open borders agenda is wildly popular. Indeed, Harris probably lost because she didn't do enough to associate herself with Biden's immigration record.
Turns out, the people in favor of mass deportations have a nuanced view of the world and don't see illegal immigrants, even the poor ones, as just an economic windfall from unregulated slave labor.
Good to see that you’re still turning out good stuff OBL.
Deport all the criminals, terrorists, the insane and those with contagious diseases that came across our borders illegally.
That would be the sane option.
Serious question. What would the logical objection be to sending some of our homegrown shitsacks south of the border for a change? No human being is illegal, no borders, etc etc.
I say we take in the families who want to get educated and work hard and follow the rules, and send the drug peddling shitbags to the failed narco states where they can really spread their wings.
And mandate the mRNA ‘vaccine’ for all that remain even temporarily - otherwise they lose their stay on this side of the border
Answer: More than half of all Americans, including:
68% of Republicans
42% of Democrats
45% of Latinos
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1783440041244528785
45% of people think mass deportations should be a high priority
28% think it should be a medium priority (73% total)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-trump-transition-cabinet-picks-2024-11-24/
57% of people approve of the idea generally. (I don't know who are the 16% who don't approve but think it should be a priority still)
95% of Americans agree that OTHER PEOPLE should be taxed so that THEY can collect the benefits of those taxes! Especially when they, the beneficiaries of said taxes, can parasitically collect from the voteless, voiceless, and powerless!
WE have the votes, they don't, Government Almighty's guns AND erections have cuntsequences, and might makes right! QED!
(After we/Trump forcibly send them all packing, can we STILL parasitically TAX them w/o them getting any bennies? We'd better think this through!)
See "The Truth About Undocumented Immigrants and Taxes" (in quotes) in your Google search window will take you straight there, hit number one... AKA http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/ For details about us natives mooching off of the taxes of the illegal sub-humans, for Social Security…
Despite all of this, Islamofascism will still be used to punish innocent Hispanics!
Above link is paywalled!
Also see this:
https://www.fool.com/retirement/2020/05/23/social-security-has-an-immigration-problem.aspx Need more legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, what have you; bring them ON!
https://www.marketplace.org/2019/01/28/undocumented-immigrants-quietly-pay-billions-social-security-and-receive-no/
Undocumented immigrants quietly pay billions into Social Security and receive no benefits
https://reason.com/2020/03/26/u-s-population-growth-rate-lowest-in-a-century-says-new-report/
No matter how responsible we are, and how hardworking we are, and how much money we save, our money will NOT feed us, change our bedsheets, or wipe our butts, while we linger on death’s doorstep, in our old age!!! Only PEOPLE can do these things! People = humans, not saved money!)
Meanwhile, the illegal sub-humans will pay and pay and pay taxes into our system, and never benefit, till we grind them into the dirt, and very-very few are left to work their asses off to support us in our old age!
Here is the latest version of that:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/26/perspectives/stimulus-checks-undocumented-taxpayers/index.html
These taxpayers won’t get stimulus checks. That’s unjust
By Tim Breene for CNN Business Perspectives
Those leeches are called Baby Boomers and they're dying off fast, thankfully.
Their entire generation has been about flaunting the wealth of those who worked before them, then retiring on the wealth of those who work hard after them.
Weird. Based on your post above you want to be a leech living off an illegal underclass.
Weird. Based on your post above you want to be a Righteous Right-Wing Wrong-Nut who uses Government Almighty to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH all of the illegal sub-humans, trannies, accused “groomers”, abortionists, gays, heathens, infidels, vaxxers, mask-wearers, atheists, dirty hippies, Jews, witches, or, the very WORST of them all, being one of those accused of STEALING THE ERECTIONS OF OUR DEAR LEADER, right, right-wing wrong-nuts? ANY methods are OK, so long as they are used against the CORRECT enemies, am I right?
Democrats are intrinsically parasitic.
Yet you want more socialism.
Thank you for the numbers. Harrigan lost that Tuesday in November and is still trying to salvage something.
No one should let her; she's lying and needs to be called on it.
I think they just assign this topic to one of the newest / youngest members on staff.
So there are only two options. Either the Reason staff truly didn't know about these very famous polls, which means they are woefully ignorant and must be fired. Or they DID know, which means they are lying propagandists and need to be fired. I'm magnanimous, so I'll let them pick.
They're not going to be fired for doing their job just because you wish their job was being honest journalists instead of hacks.
Not many want open borders either but we never see Fiona criticizing Dems for not following the will of the people.
Americans have much more nuanced views on mass deportation than some surveys suggest, and politicians should take note.
This focus on nuance is rather different from the typical Reason position that any limits on immigration are racist. That's probably why Fiona carefully limits this characterization to "mass deportation" even though it's true of immigration policy generally. She wants that that fact to remain hidden.
Maybe Trump winning is going to be even better than I thought if it's forcing hardcore ideologues like Fiona to admit the existence of nuance. Getting her to admit it applies to her preferences as well will be the next step.
Can we just deport people over a certain mass? Then we can put up a sign at the border that says, "No fat people. Ukrainian Instagram models welcome."
If we put them at the Canadian border, the signs will need to be written in both English and French.
Or maybe "No fat people. Young sexy models that look like Spermy Daniels when she was MUCH younger, and are willing and able to join The Donald's Harem, are welcum with open arms, ass long ass they will open their sexy legs to The Donald!"
Some people have very elaborate kinks that they obviously spend a lot of time thinking about
Nice try, Fiona.
Prioritizing the badest of the bad guys does not mean we don't want all the bad guys gone.
Fiona Harrigan, you lost. Fuck off and die.
"How Many Americans really want mass deportations."
I know of at least one.
It would seem that the ratio of them to "Americans that really want a mass food truck industry." is >> 1.
Ctrl+f 'spend': 0 results.
Fuck you Fiona. It may surprise *you* that the basket of Hitler-loving deplorables might have some nuance in their desire to watch every last illegal immigrant child get dropped into a lake of fire, but that's because you're stupid.
The only ones who think 'immigrants' encompasses one-entity is Reason writers and Democrats. Accordingly; they insist that one-entity is the only one 'working' and entirely honorable and pure.
Maybe, just maybe, immigrant describes a vast variation of individual people with very different work ethics and levels of honorable and the very POINT is to properly VET the immigration so the 'communist' (Gov/'Guns' will support me) minds don't conquer the US of which it is doing a piss poor job at doing when 75%+ support the 'communist' agenda.
Stop the money spigot and a bunch will self deport. Start there.
Getting rid of the ones we already have in custody and know are here illegally is the next easy step. After that you start getting to ICE raids at businesses and other legal structures that make life more difficult to function as an illegal immigrant. While I can agree that most people don't have an appetite for the measures to deport all of them, the majority would still like to take at least the first few obvious steps.
The only way to fix illegal immigration is to imprison FOR LIFE all employers complicit in hiring them and committing fraud.
Oh that's useful. You gonna pay for all that, or is that something you're gonna palm off on the rest of us?
You read that wrong. He's claiming we have to do that because his preferences require any steps against illegal immigration to be impossible.
"Life imprisonment" is almost certainly overkill, but punishing employers who deliberately hire illegal immigrants seems like a fairly reasonable part of cutting back on illegal immigration. And I would expect "employers" as a class to generally have a stronger sense of delayed time preference, so it might even actually be quite a deterrent without many people needing to actually end up in jail.
As long as what is considered due diligence in that regard on the part of employers is clearly spelled out in the law, and is reasonable. Employers are not going to be able to be absolutely certain that an applicant is here legally.
So that should include large numbers of the Biden administration, right?
There is no chance that Fiona is unaware of how much she is lying and/or misrepresenting everything here.
Wanting to prioritize the low hanging fruit doesn't mean people are disinterested in the remaining tree. Wanting to keep families together doesn't mean people want them to remain here illegally. A child of illegal immigrants must logically also be an illegal immigrant. Send the entire family back.
These are leading questions (blatantly so, if you look at the wording) and the interpretation here is illogical for anyone with basic English comprehension. For her claim that the nuances support her position, she displays zero ability to consider the nuances of her biased poll.
Make the logical case for more immigration. Advocate for a society where libertarian values prosper before advocating for injecting that society with foreign values.
Again, for 8+ yrs. (if not since Reagan) it's been explained that nobody hates Gal Gadot, Natalie Portman, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Selma Hayek, Sergei Brin, Alex Trebek, Elon Musk, Melania Trump, Jackie Chan, Carlos Santana, Shakira, etc., etc., etc. because they're from another country or their skin is a slightly darker shade than Lilly white. Nobody largely has a problem with immigrants eating dogs or cats or bats or pangolins.
The problem is when policy like the ACA is sold as a lie based on current population demographics, the lie is revealed and the whole dishonest system is openly predicated on the lie, we're all forced to pay in, and dishonest, socialist scum like Harrigan call for expanding the lie to include more people.
As usual, your issue is never the issue. Their issue is never the issue. Their issue is to distract you from their need to accrue and abuse power.
There's a reason (hah!) I pledged to donate $100 if they fired Fiona. Maybe I should have made it $1000.
The majority of the commentariat disagrees with the polls. So what do they do? Attack the author, naturally.
"Kill the messenger" works SOOOOO well! History tells us so, according to PervFected MEEEEEE, don't cha know!?!?!?
(Ass long ass my raging "punishment boner" gets satisfied is all that matters. I'm SURE that Fiona Harrigan and ALL the other WRONG writers cry themselves to sleep every night, over the cruel lies of the haters... In the minds of the fuming impotent haters, at least!)
The wording, presentation, and interpretation of the poll are all misleading. Even if I believed they properly sampled the population, the wording of the questions do not support the conclusions being offered here.
Yes, sure, ALL of the sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds are FAR smarter, better, and more honest than the average Reason writer! I asked my favorite AI, "Perplexity", about this general phenomenon... Links about this shit are easy to find... And here is what they AI had to say: (See also dunning-kruger-effect):
Yes, there are several poll results showing that most people tend to rate themselves as above average in various domains:
1. Intelligence: 65% of Americans believe they are smarter than the average person[3][5].
2. Driving skills: People, on average, rate their driving abilities to be above average[1].
3. Sense of humor: On average, individuals rate their sense of humor to be above average[1].
4. Multiple intelligences: College students rated themselves above average on all of Gardner's multiple intelligences, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, and spatial intelligence[1].
These findings demonstrate a widespread tendency for people to overestimate their abilities across various domains, a phenomenon often referred to as the "above-average effect" or "illusory superiority"[1]. This effect is particularly pronounced among less-skilled individuals, aligning with the Dunning-Kruger effect, where those with lower abilities tend to overestimate their competence the most[7].
While specific poll results for ethics and parenting were not provided in the search results, the general trend of self-overestimation likely extends to these areas as well, given the consistency of this effect across other domains.
Citations:
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8883889/
(Most links stripped off because Reason rejects this stuff otherwise)
This doesn't mean that most people believe that they are above average, they believe that the average person is below average.
Yes, this!!! Everyone ***I*** meet is below MY average!!!
(Butt then, SOME people accuse MEEEE of being smugly! This PROVES their below-average-ness!!!)
As I read the article I saw “family dignity” and knew the comments would be more hateful than usual.
It's progressive coded language and you know it. Human dignity is a completely different concept to normies than left-wing activists.
Human dignity, as in "some humans are sub-human" according to righties?
According to the inhumane humans at least, all humans are human, butt the NON-illegal NON-subhumans are FAR more human than ALL of these others!
Cry those tears into entitlement.
"If I can't stomp all over your land and claim it you're not treating me like a human."
The leftard BS in full swing.
And SOME people feel entitled to stomp all over those who are regarded as being illegal sub-humans! Which is worse, stomping over some land and some lines in the sand, or stomping on those who are, actually, really, humans, who just want to walk across lines in the sand, to work for an honest living? How many of your illegal sub-humans are claiming YOUR (non-collectively-owned) land, collectivist-statist? Are they squatting on land that you pay taxes to own? The illegal sub-humans, most of them, can and will work (often very hard work) tomorrow, or right now. A newborn NATIVE baby won't work for Your Precious Collective Hive for MANY-many years! For the Good of the Collective Hive, shit makes FAR more sense to send the invading armies of slacker new-borns, right back up the Collectively Owned Birth Canals, than shit makes sense to shove the willing-to-work illegal sub-humans back across the Magic Lines in the Sands!
LOL... And which part of that didn't say exactly what I just said.
With the add-lib of Foreigners are 'saviors' and Americans are 'trash' thus Foreigners have that right else they're not being treated as human.
Yep... Leftard self-entitlement "I'm a Victim" BS full swing.
So then you and I both agree that if we are going to be "victims" of the willing-to-work-right-now illegal sub-humans, then we are even FAR more so, the collective victims of new-born native babies, we will NOT work for Our Collective Hive for MANY years!!! Send them all back UP the birth canals!
Or we'll just send them all to Mexico where they can run around 'claiming' to be entitled to it.
You're going no-where with your BS propaganda.
[We] Americans have a 'right' to claim Mexico as our own!!!! /s
How are you (third-party Nosenheimer and Buttinsky) a "victim" when a willing worker agrees to work for pay from a willing buyer?
How is Mexico a victim if the USA just invades it and claims it as home?
As in "no human is illegal" to the left, but you knew that.
Act Blue must have sent the signal out.
Notice none of you can make an intelligent argument? Always appeal to emotion or morality. Call your enemies racist and heartless. Etc. Etc.
I'd give 1000 to 1 odds you donate 0 to charity but co sider yourself good because you advocate government spending on people.
You read the article and saw the leading questions and appeal to emotion and just knew what side you were on lol.
Yes, your comments are very hateful.
When the commentariat sees the word nuance and non-binary options, they immediately think illegals must be deported to save women's bathrooms
Yes, this! Also, ALL of the bipedal people should have their "bis" amputated by Government Almighty, so ass to FORCE these special-in-their-own-minds assholes to becum simple ordinary "pedals" like the rest of us plain and humble folks!!!
Ass for MEEEE, I REALLY hate shit when bipedal so-called “people” LOOK at me in pubic restrooms, where I can get NO rest at ALL! I just KNOW that they (or zee or zem or twatever they want to be called) are admiring my shapely gall bladder, ogling my voluptuous pancreas, and fantasizing about fondling my neurons and my astrocytes!
ALSO note that many of these "special" bipedal freaks (and their fellow travelers) are also bipedalphiliac preverts! They just LOVE that them thar bipeds!!! Now they're even getting organized into so-called "NAMBLA", the North American Man-Biped Love Association!!! Preverts, ALL of them!!! I hope that they get whut's cumming to them!!!
(Ass for me, I am girding my loins, manning my barricades, and guarding My Precious Bodily Fluids!)
I think what really set them off was “family dignity”. The ones with the extra shrill attacks against the author are the same ones who shower contempt on anyone who calls separating families for the sake of separating families cruel. They think it’s fun and funny.
More appeals to emotions from jewfree and sarc. Pretty pathetic.
What percentage of illegals does this appeal cover buddy?
Of course the family dignity of a 70 year old grandmother who committed no violence or damage at J6 doesn't matter to you. Weird.
Yes we already know you’re a sociopath that likes arbitrarily separating families because of the hurt it causes.
As I’ve said many times, you should have been a cop. You would been one that kills dogs in front of children so you can watch them cry, knowing the brotherhood and union will protect you.
I do find it humorous that you belittle me for appealing to emotion while appealing to hatred, as usual. Accusing me of what you are doing while you do it, as usual.
sarcasmic
I do find it humorous that you belittle me for appealing to emotion while appealing to hatred
Also sarc:
you should have been a cop. You would been one that kills dogs in front of children so you can watch them cry
It's pretty amusing watching sarc claim others appeal to hatred as if that's the worst thing he can think to accuse them of, right before he appeals to hatred himself. I see he's keeping his perfect record of never applying to himself the standards he uses to judge others.
Not appealing to anything dipshit. I’m being serious. His ability to write long screeds that contain not a single truthful statement, and the obvious pleasure he feels when people he hate come to harm, show that he would have gone far in law enforcement.
Sure. Why don't you show us his comment that proves to you he wants to kill people's dogs so just to enjoy the paid it causes their owners.
This is the problem with left wingers. They're so used to spewing their hatred among themselves where any of their hate-filled characterizations are accepted as true they forget other people expect their assertions to be supportable by evidence.
"...forget other people expect their assertions to be supportable by evidence."
Do you ever marshal the small amount of work that shit takes to read the news, and to THINK? After having read about abusive cops (as well as OTHER criminals, who are NOT wearing Special Uniforms) who shoot dogs AND people, for NO good reason at ALL, you think we still need to gather MORE evidence that SOME people LOVE to inflict senseless death and pain? Or are all of the news sources LYING to us all?
Twat planet did you say you're from? Planet Paranoid, or Planet Stubbornly Stupid?
PS, JesseAz (by shit's writings right here) indeed demonstrates just about every day, that shit is one of these deliberately cruelty-loving Servants and Serpents of the Evil One. You don't even need to read between the lines. JesseAz never met any "Team R" cruelty that shit did NOT like!
Or the one who just got 10 year in prison for praying peacefully in front of a Planned Parenthood abortion mill.
LOL How many women have been sexually assaulted by a male to female transgender is a public bathroom? Apparently, zero since the data lumped together "rapes and invasion of privacy," and then all the examples were invasions of privacy.
How many women are raped each year by males pastors of fundamental churches? The Christian Post, December 2018, "Hundreds of sexual abuse allegations in Fundamental Baptist churches, investigation finds" https://www.christianpost.com/news/hundreds-of-sexual-abuse-allegations-revealed-in-fundamental-baptist-churches-investigation-finds.html
Women are in far greater danger from males in fundamental churches than they are in transgender bathroom. Shall we ban fundamental churches?
A more apt analogy would be, "Shall we force fundamentalist churches to admit practicing Muslims to their congregations?"
What a painfully bad argument.
There are over 300,000 deaths per year in California, yet Alaska has only about 7,000 per year.
Apparently living in California makes you 40x more likely to die, per Rick Abrams logic.
Oh. That's explains the other polls posted and the criticism of their questions. Got it.
You're such a joke lol.
Americans want to be ride of the criminals, no matter from whence they come. Deporting illegal criminals is cheaper than arresting citizen criminals whom we have to support for years and years. Thus, targeting illegal criminals make sound policy.
Deporting regular Mexicans will be a huge disaster. The few Mexican illegals who are criminals are linked to the drug trade and that problem is 100% the making of US government policy. Nonetheless, those few criminals have to go, especially active MS 13. Mexicans need to be treated better than other illegals just as we treat Cubans differently. California and the US West in general were part of Mexico (and Spain) far longer than they have been part of the US. Mexicans have truly help to build our nation using a capitalist approach. Immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, except Israelis, should be excluded. We have no special relationship to those immigrants from far away lands, especially those who come here and chant "Death to America."
Note. MS 13 started in LA but are from El Savador and not Mexico. Now they hae spread nation wide
Thank you for a factual explanation of reality for those in this forum who think that white people inhabited a completely barren land in the 1880s
More cries of racism. Zero intellectual argument. Weird.
Strange, you'd think we, having done this already to the native americans, would be smart enough to not let if be done with ourselves - after all, we've seen how unlimited immigration has worked out here already.
Nice great nation - for the immigrants, not so much for the natives.
There are 40 million Mexicans in the US. Most are dual nationals. I am married to one. However the largest majority of illegal immigrants are Mexicans. Mexicans essential to US agriculture in the US and have been so since World War 2. Fortunately there were no numerical limits immigration from Mexico until 1965. The US might have starved during WW2 because all the US agricultural workers were drafted into the military. Mexico WAS and ally during WW2 but only a tiny number of Mexicans actually served in combat in Mexican units. (Some enlisted in the US military.)
I'll never get over how much praise you give all the members of a self-made sh*thole nation.
If they're such 'saviors' how come they want to immigrate to the US in the first place?
Shouldn't the product of their 'savior' work (own nation) be golden?
Families don't have to be separated. They are all free to leave the country with the deported family member. Separation will be up to the families involved.
Now, now... That's not how hostages work. /s
Holding family members hostage (anchors) to get-away with a crime is a long-lived past-time of the criminal minds.
Trump can start by (1) preventing further illegal immigration, (2) deporting criminal illegal aliens and (3) deporting the 1.5 million illegal immigrants who have already had their day in court, have been ordered to leave and have refused to do so. Then he can reassess what, if anything, else should be done.
He should start with Elon Illegal Student Muskrat
You mean Musk the druggie?
https://www.wsj.com/tech/elon-musk-tesla-money-drugs-board-61af9ac4
Are we criticizing recreational drug use on a libertarian platform?
I don't care but it makes you a security risk.
Lying about it makes you a security risk. Have you ever gone through the process?
Or Musk the traitor?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/17/technology/elon-musk-spacex-national-security-reporting.html
Stop picking on autistic african americans, bigot.
You believe all kinds of bullshit.
Charlie is almost as dumb as shrike. Almost.
Three-quarters of Republicans agreed that "family unity, respect for human dignity, and protection for the persecuted" must be "key priorities" as the government ramps up border security and immigration enforcement.
Easily solved by sending all back at the same time.
The 'jurisdiction thereof' needs some massive public recognition.
I really didn't understand myself why that was there till the comments filled in the pieces.
The US never had 'born' citizenship.
That concept is nothing but a deceitful corruption of the US Constitution.
It should've been easy to spot since US citizens don't 'born' their children as Foreigners just because they're on vacation.
Trump probably won't deport more than 1% (i.e. 150,000-200,000) of the 15-20 million illegal aliens in America by the end of his term in 2028.
Trump wisely says his deportation plan will target those who have committed additional crimes (especially violent crimes) before and/or after coming to America, including those who weren't granted asylum and remain here.
Trump will also convince other countries to enforce border immigration laws to prevent migrants from coming here, and to take back those already here, which should also reduce the number of illegal migrants attempting to come.
Why would he deport less than Clinton or obama?
Many of his big donors depend on illegal immigrant labor.
LOL.. Right. That makes sense. Donor the policies one doesn't want. /s
You leftards will say anything to get what you want.
Charlie is a stupid, dishonest shitweasel.
The left wing news media propagandists (including Reason) will begin showing and denouncing illegal immigrant being detained, arrested, incarcerated and boarding planes to leave the country (with weeping wives and children crying and screaming) 24/7 until a several Republicans in the Senate and House speak out and vote against more deportations.
I don't want this to happen, but that's what is likely to occur (due to RINOs).
When Americans are presented with more nuanced questions about mass deportation than binary yes-or-no ones, and when faced with the potential consequences of that policy, support tends to slip.
*eyeroll*
Should a husband beat his wife, yes or no?
Nah, f that. Let's add some nuance. What degree of him beating his wife would you be OK with? Surely some level of spousal abuse [baby murder, pedo grooming, property crime] is acceptable, right?
"Well gee, when you put it that way..."
Which is the answer you're trying to steer them towards.
When people like Fiona here try to forcibly inject "nuance" into a situation, what they're ultimately doing is trying to quietly remove one of the binaries. They're trying to take the penultimate question out of the realm of Objective Truth - Is or Is Not - and cast it into shades of gray.
It's the first step to rationalizing a position they know is wrong.
In practice, "mass deportation, yes or no?" isn't a terribly useful question. It misses all sorts of important details.
No, it doesn't. It just obfuscates the most important one.
Do you or do you not want a society that tolerates the presence of criminal illegal aliens? If your answer is "no," then it doesn't matter whether you're talking about violent ones, ones with families, whether deportation efforts are practical/achievable, or any other distracting consideration you'd like to manipulate them away from that "no" with.
And if your answer is "yes," incidentally, then own the reality of that position in its starkest, most honest form. Say - you, YOU FIONA - say it out loud: "I want a society that tolerates the presence of criminal illegal aliens."
Own that. Because all this article proves is what a pathetic coward you are when it comes to your ACTUAL stance on the subject at the end of the day.
Immigrant are great people. They are more conservative and family oriented than the average American and have no truck with Progressives, who they generally disregard with disdain. The ones that come from totalitarian countries have a hatred for socialist dictatorshipa that only those who experience it directly can have.
As an employer, I found they work harder and they give me far less bullshit than the average Zoomer.
While they are some bad apple in the mix, overall immigrants have employment and crime levels similar to or less than Americans.
I say we reform the immigration process, start seriously vetting immigrants at the border to weed the bad ones out, let the good ones thru and into jobs and on a path to citizenship. It's the best way to keep the Progressives in check.
Prior to 1965, there were no limits in legal immigration to the US from anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. But there was no vetting at the border. You had to apply for a visa at a US diplomatic facility in the country of your birth. If you could convince the Consular Officer that you weren't a criminal, a revolutionary, or likely to be a public charge, you got a permanent resident visa.
The entire illegal immigration problem was wirh the change of the law in 1965 to slap quotas on immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Reverse the law and the illegal immigration problem completely vanishes.
Fix the problem ... Ya know like Argentina did? /s
Was founded as a just nation and turned into a communist h*llhole on the verge of a Venezuelan collapse?
Why ... It's almost like the USA has gotten more 'communist' now that 15% percent of voting is directly from foreign-born immigration hasn't it? Do you defy that reality as well? Or do you defy the statistics that show 75% of them vote for the 'democratic' self-identifying [Na]tional So[zi]alist party?
If they're so great, why don't they immigrate legally? Why do they hop the border, or overstay their visas, or violate their visa terms, or remain after being denied asylum/refugee status, or sham marry then immediately divorce?
Let's be real about the numbers here. Far and away there are two kinds of illegal alien presence in America: border jumpers and visa overstays/violations. Both know - with absolute certainty - that what they're doing is wrong... and yet they do it anyway. How is that "great?" Is that what "great people" do? Or is that what "not great people" do?
Yes, I'll grant you that much less than more of them are inclined towards active crimes against persons - so in that regard, let's compare it to murderers vs trespasser. If we're ONLY considering trespasser, does the fact that they're "more conservative and family oriented" make them any less a trespasser? Does the fact that they "hate socialist dictatorships" make them any less a trespasser? Does the fact that "they work harder and give you less grief" make them any less a trespasser?
And are we just rationalizing their trespass as somehow "acceptable" at that point?
Or, let's say you have a few acres of land that you own outright. They enter your land, build a little house on it (just a tiny piece, one you weren't even using), raise a nice family, share your views on conservatism and socialism, and maybe even help out around the rest of the acreage. Wouldn't you still have - and want to exercise - the absolute right to kick them out, even if for literally no reason at all. Or would you cede a portion of your property to them because they're "the good ones?"
Now instead of one family - how about a thousand. How about a million? How much should America cede to "the good ones?"
It's fine to say we should reform the immigration process. I agree with this point even. But what I disagree with is this notion that we should accept their entitlement mentality of "ask for forgiveness instead of permission" that they're hoping to take gross advantage of.
They knew it was wrong the moment they jumped that border or overstayed that visa. Forgiving that is not "keeping Progressives in check." That's enabling Progressive ideology and actions.
You are upset with people who either committed one misdemeanor (the illegal entrants) or didn't commit any crime at all (the visa overstayers) but are okay with a 34x convicted felon in the White House.
The law is sacred and not to be questioned. Unless you’re Trump or a Trump supporter. Then enforcing the law is lawfare.
It’s all about who, not what.
That 'what' you like to paint as a no-biggie practically justifies getting SHOT dead. What do you think would happen if you tried to "jump the fence" into a nuclear research facility UN-authorized?
For sarcasmic the law is only sacred if it goes after Trump and his supporters. When the what is UN-authorized trespassing he likens it to "so what; no big deal".
You Self-Project so bad; I don't think you know how to do anything else.
Learning to be mentally capable of recognizing you don't have any 'right' to other people's nations, things, and labors would...
...go a very long ways in fixing your "I'm a Victim of everything and therefore must Self-Project my own BS trained thoughts to be everyone else's problem."
When did I say even a single word about Trump? Literally, in any article since November that hasn't been explicitly about him?
*snaps repeatedly*
Try to focus Charlie. Focus!
I asked: how are these "great people." When all these "great people" have the shared trait of committing a crime or a civil offense - which they aren't even ashamed or apologetic for - at what point do we stop referring to them collectively as "great?"
If they were great, they'd be immigrating legally, wouldn't they. That's what "the good ones" would do, right?
Is Trump a great person?
Being convicted of a misdemeanor does not get you deported from the US. And almost none of the illegal immigrants have even been indicted. Most can't be because of the statute of limitations. Do you not believe in due process?
Being convicted of a misdemeanor does not get you deported from the US.
Not if you're a citizen. Aliens don't hold that same protection. Nor should they.
If your misdemeanor is Trespassing it most definitely warrants your removal (stopping the trespass from continuing).
Twist, Deceive and Self-Project
Twist, Deceive and Self-Project
Twist, Deceive and Self-Project
It's the Leftard way.
What-ever it takes to talk your way into conquering real-justice being implemented.
Foreigners can absolutely be deported over a misdemeanor.
Because it's far too difficult to immigrant to the US via legal means, so people resort to illegal means out of desperation to escape their crappy home country which isn't nearly as good as the US.
Look, I've had an American citizen who is originally Russian immigrant working for me the last decade. He's a company guy, the type that really don't exist much anymore. It took him over a decade to get his goddamn green card. His new wife, a Chinese national who has a great job, hates Communists, but now fears that with Trump she may bet sent back in 5-10 years time. Why are we making it difficult for these people?
This not a special case. We've e got the same BS all over the place with immigration. We make it too hard for hard working, honest people to become Americans. Let's reform the immigration process to keep out the bad people and let in the good people.
And no, your wrong: enabling progressive ideology is by stopping immigration. Reagan had it right - the moment American turns its back on immigrants is the moment it stops being America. These immigrants are more American in their values than most of those born to the name.
Reagan would return to the Democratic Party today.
He certainly wouldn’t be welcome in Trump’s GOP.
The pro-business, centrist part of the party, yes. A free trader, pro-immigration, pro individual liberty politician like Reagan would be the most comfortable there. He would not get along with Progressives, just like he did get along the 1960/70's socialist/hippy generation.
Sure, anti-government Reagan would join the Dems who believe government should do literally everything.
On the bright side it's interesting to see how quickly our leftists drop the "Reagan was a stupid lunatic who ruined our economy" meme. This is one of the ways you tell they are insincere, they argue contradictory positions in difference circumstances because they aren't arguing for their worldview. They are just attacking anything they can but they don't actually believe in the positions they are arguing.
No, he’s not a communist traitor. Which is a current prerequisite for Democrat membership. Also, even a drop of patriotism is a disqualifier.
so people resort to illegal means out of desperation
This is never - ever - a valid basis for anything. It will not ever make a wrongful action magically a right one.
You may as well say that a thief has a right to steal a loaf of bread because he's desperate to feed his starving family. Wrong. Need does not, and can not, EVER create right. No matter how necessary he determined his actions, he is a thief. He stole something that was not his, and in doing so deprived the property rights of the rightful bread owner. Period. Full stop.
What you're asserting is a need-based philosophy, and it's the - not "a," the - core tenet of Progressive ideology.
but now fears that with Trump she may bet sent back in 5-10 years time.
Why? He's a permanent resident, and she's lawfully married. Tell her she's an idiot. She applies for her green card, gets it, lives here for five years, pays her taxes, and if she is as upstanding as you say she is - then she can start the naturalization process.
She has an unfounded fear. Nobody's making anything "difficult" for them. We're talking about illegal aliens. Not green card applicants awaiting approval, permanent residents in good standing, and especially not naturalized citizens.
Maybe you should explain that to her.
We make it too hard for hard working, honest people to become Americans. Let's reform the immigration process to keep out the bad people and let in the good people.
Again, I already agreed with this point. But you didn't answer my question.
If they know - with absolute certainty - that what they're doing is wrong and will make their presence in America one of illegal alienage... and they do it anyway - how is that "great?"
How does that make the bread thief great?
Reagan had it right - the moment American turns its back on immigrants is the moment it stops being America.
Nobody's saying America should turn its back on immigrants. Not even Donnie T himself.
It should turn its back on illegal aliens. Immigration I support and wholeheartedly welcome.
Legal immigration. Not "ends justify the means" illegal alienage. Again, "ends justify the means" - that's a Progressive mentality. Not a Conservative (or American) one.
They know they can't make their point without being mendacious so they never even try. Conflating illegal immigrants with legal immigrants is just one of the many, many ways they do it in this case.
You may as well say that a thief has a right to steal a loaf of bread because he's desperate to feed his starving family.
Or that murdering someone is ok because it's important to raise awareness that health insurance sucks.
Don't be an ass. The green card application has a clock. Applications currently have a backlog of years, especially for Chinese nationals. If Trump throws further sand into works, the clock could run out, and back she goes. He himself, the Russian, barely made it due to post 9-11 delays implemented from the dept. of homeland security when they switched from NIS to USCIS.
Another colleague, a gorgeous Italian woman, a big Trump supporter, was on the verge of being sent back to Italy due to green card delays, and only made it due to the mercy of a professor who took pity on her and got her into his lab for grad school.
It's not easy to immigrate to the US.
The green card application has a clock. Applications currently have a backlog of years, especially for Chinese nationals.
Well, China's a belligerent, hostile, enemy nation - and we have a real problem with spies from there (to say nothing of ChiNats gobbling up real estate, oddly and especially near military bases). So she might get a little extra well-deserved scrutiny. I'll grant you that.
If Trump throws further sand into works, the clock could run out, and back she goes.
Well, it doesn't necessarily mean she goes back to China. I hear that Swiftie-chick running Canada is basically inviting anyone that the US is planning to send packing. Go there for the time being. Also, people keep telling me that all the Latin American nations that aliens are fleeing from are gorgeous and beautiful. Not a bad place to wait out a green card approval, right?
He himself, the Russian, barely made it due to post 9-11 delays implemented from the dept. of homeland security when they switched from NIS to USCIS.
Well, I mean, be realistic here. Green Card, Resident Citizenship, and Naturalization - they are not an entitlement. Why do you keep talking about them like they are? (Again, in literally every post you've made here, or at least the ones I've read/replied, you're revealing some highly Progressive creds on the subject despite pretending that this somehow all benefits Americans and/or Conservatives.) Hey, yea, maybe we have to put some delays on it. Maybe even put a stop to it all together until we sort things out.
We're not in our right, as a nation - and as the nation that others are asking a favor of - to do that?
Are you seriously taking the position that America shouldn't be allowed to define its own immigration policy - and change it when circumstances demand (or even require)? That the immigrants should be defining it for us?
Again, very progressive.
It's not easy to immigrate to the US.
Do we owe it to any alien to make it easy for them?
Should beggars get to be choosers?
Immigration should ALWAYS be a net benefit to our citizens. Period.
This is never - ever - a valid basis for anything. It will not ever make a wrongful action magically a right one.
But it will be used to bridge libertarians to progressivism, forever.
Did I say it was a justification? No I did not. An explanation was asked for and I provided an explanation. Pay attention next time.
You provided an invalid explanation.
I pointed out how and why it's so. Don't cry.
"crappy home country which isn't nearly as good as the US"
So the lesson is ... [WE] foreigners trashed our home country and now need someone else's greener-pasture to tromp-on next.
Desperation doesn't cure the "conquer and consume" curse.
Learning to make a self-sustaining nation that isn't crappy is the only cure.
If Republicans had any brains they would push legislation to welcome these social conservatives who hate Big Government to the US and to make them voting citizens quickly.
But their nativist bigotry has addled their brains.
Yep. This election was won by Trump in no small part due to minorities and Latino immigrants calling bullshit on Progressives. Progressives are the problem in my view, not immigrants.
This is true, but minorities and Latino immigrants are also the ones suffering the most under the deluge of illegal alien tolerance.
And they're also the ones most resentful of them.
Indeed. Trump has made major gains in foreign born voting patterns with Latinos.
...but...
Those voting patterns are still 61%[D] to 35%[R].
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-race-ethnicity-and-education/
Well A) first we'd have to identify them; then B) we'd have to round them all up; then C) we'd have to administer some kind of test (which couldn't be easily gamed) in order to determine their social conservatism.
But then, you'd openly balk at all three of those things wouldn't you.
And let's not kid ourselves - breaking into our house or overstaying their welcome isn't a great way to get started on establishing ones socially conservative creds, is it.
So long as Republicans can deport those who, "who" ... LOVE ... "Big Government" ?free? ponies. I really like where you're going with this one. Humorously, by the studies, your own stance would deport 51% of current immigrants and 75% of legal immigrants.
THE ISSUE.
You're talking about 25% of the current immigration.
75%+ VOTE for MORE socialism.
Check your statements for evidence.
AT pegs it right on. Illegal Immigrants are those OKAY with breaking law.
Check your foundation. Immigrants (if they are so hard-working and great) should have a great nation to live in w/o immigrating.
Yes; VETTING is the key but your own personal perspective doesn't address but a small pocket of pool.
should have a great nation
Yes. If these people are such a tremendous boon to prosperity, isn't it immoral for us to take them away from the struggling shitholes from which they flee?
I say we reform the immigration process,...
That must start with greatly improved border security. It doesn't matter what our process is if "immigrants" can literally walk around it.
Already the agriculture sector, which overwhelmingly supported Trump, is waking up to the fact that mass deportations will result in the extinction of the sector. The Central Valley of California is about to get depopulated and California will be an even deeper blue.
No sympathy. Elections have consequences.
How would it go deeper Blue? Are the deportees voting Republican?
The farmers will go out of business and move out of state. They won't be able to afford the more prosperous Blue parts of California.
And then California will become a welfare state that collapses.
Good.
So they would abandon all of that expensive and very fertile farmland and go move someplace less well-situated for growing crops? Rather than hire legal workers at a higher cost and raise prices? Wouldn't these same immigration restrictions apply outside of the Central Valley - i.e. everywhere?
Or would they change careers altogether, and starve?
You certainly have an unique grasp on economic motivators.
'How Many Americans Really Want Mass Deportation?'
And by Americans, we mean super-rich, pseudo-libertarian industrialists, right?
The 1200 sample-pool is certainly small enough to be cherry-picked.
>How Many Americans Really Want Mass Deportation?
55% of them.
Elections have consequences - or are we going with 'populism' means that we need to 'manage' 'democracy' 'for the greater good.'
Russian interference!
All of them you sub human cunt. Fuck off and die
>But a new survey suggests that Americans' support for mass deportation comes with important—and overlooked—caveats. Sixty percent of Republicans believe that "immigration enforcement should prioritize violent criminals and those with final orders of removal rather than 'all individuals without legal status,'"
In other words - they support mass deportation.
But believe it should be prioritized to go after criminals first in order to be most effective?
Which is what Trump has said they'll be doing.
Is an E-Verify mandate for employers still on the table? Whatever happened to that? Why doesn't anyone talk about it any more? Is it a broken system? Would there be a return-on-investment (in terms of deterring illegal immigration) in fixing it?
The majority didn't want open borders - but there was never an article in Reason chiding Biden for ignoring the desires of the American people.
Reasons chiding, "The American people are WRONG. Foreigners are RIGHT, hard-working, and 'saviors' of the American slums!"
"The foreign 'saviors' jumped fences, endured life-threatening hardships and broke US laws all so they could just but help Americans...." /s
Why it almost sounds so good-to-be-true it sounds psychotic.
My question was "What 'Republicans' did they survey, the audience of 'The View' ?" but I think Jesse covered it above.
People are pissed that our own citizens are second class to illegal foreign criminals getting free shit out the wazoo. And while I'm libertarian enough to be against most free shit, if there is going to be a bunch of free shit, I want it going to US citizens first and foremost. Taxing me to give it to an invading horde of criminals is bullshit.
I've always been for tripling annual legal immigration with the caveats that (1) NO AMNESTY, (2) NO MORE CODDLING ILLEGALS and (3) the system prioritizes things we actually need like doctors/nurses, rather than quotas by country which makes zero sense.
But good luck getting it through Congress without them trying to slide in a bullshit amnesty. And since we can't have nice things, then Trump is right about this one: DEPORT, DEPORT, DEPORT.
By the way, what I advocate was (more or less) *Canada's* system, as explained on their own website, when I looked into moving to the Toronto area ~20 years ago, back when urban America/Canada were far less of a shit-hole than they are now. You had to have $10k in the bank, a job lined up, and there was no fucking around.
Why can't all these Mexican immigrants just VOTE to have Mexico join the US Union?
Funny how none of them respect our borders but somehow want respect for their borders.
The "conquer and consume" mentality at large???
Hey, if Castreaux is going to become the governor of Canada, anything's possible.
I'm smiling as I point out that Reason never learns.
Hillary up by 9 points in imminent election day
Kamala is ahead of Trump in popular vote and Electoral College
REason : AMericans don't support Mass Deportation
But 3 things make this ridiculous to say
1) you only wrote this article because people are vocal about wanting mass deportations
2) Not every illegal immigrant is Tren de Aragua but NOBODY wants X nonTDA to balance Y TDA...NOBODY INCL THE ARTICLE WRITER
3) If that article were true then if must be true that
How Many Americans Really DO NOT Want Mass Deportation?
Even among non-Republicans and non-conservatives, opposition to the policy comes with caveats.
Maybe you should hire Kamala as chief editor. uburdened by common sense
I want enough violent illegal immigrants to be publicly and loudly deported. I also want loud and brash talk to to stem the inflow. In a parallel move, I want the legal immigration to be streamlined to cost less, take less time, and becomes less of a hassle. I want the risk of deportation for being illegal to become high enough and the ease of legal immigration improves, that illegal immigrants consider self-deportation/self-reporting and getting in queue for legal immigration. I would like to see a time-limited self-reporting avenue for illegal immigrants to apply for legal status, but this would need to sunset after a year or two at the maximum.
A south Texas libertarian here.
Deportations must be very visible and extended to various categories of illegal entries in order to get the message firmly into the heads of potential new illegal entrants that they will be caught and it won't be worth the trouble. That is the main purpose of deportations.
Secondly, of course we want to get as many gang members and true criminals as possible deported back to their home countries.
Third, we must restore the principle that people who immigrate legally are at the front of the line, not the back of the line.
Enforcement does not need to get 100% of the illegals out. Many will self-deport when they see they are at risk. And those who maintain the usual low profile and do not commit crimes, they are unlikely to be targeted by anyone, even Trump. The media should stop with the sanctimonious tone that equates border enforcement with human rights violations. The USA has a right to enforce its borders just like every other nation.
But quickly the effects on the labor force will demonstrate to Americans that we need to fix the LEGAL immigration rules, because we are going to need a lot of them. Green cards for university graduates who have no criminal record are an obvious start. Lightening up on the H1-B restrictions should also be a prime focus. Both of these mean skilled workers with very little if any drain on social services.
Once we have the border problem under control, we can turn to fixing the obvious injustices, like legalizing the dreamers. They are basically Americans already and should be treated as such.
If Congress can get its act together, they could create a guest worker program that regulates the flow of laborers who seek only to work and send money home, not to become citizens. The far right seems not to understand the economic need for this, while the far left only wants it for a supply of future voters. A guest worker program is the obvious solution but the politicians can't seem to arrive there for political reasons.
If a majority of Americans don't want the existing immigration laws enforced and the deportation of those who broke them, they can ask their representatives in Congress to pass an amnesty bill, with some minimal required tenure of residency and gainful employment. For some reason none is being put forward.
The reason is that the elites prefer their foreign servants to be illegal. It makes them cheaper and more compliant.
"Among Republicans, 75% agreed with the statement, “In accordance with American values, family unity, respect for human dignity, and protection for the persecuted must remain key priorities as the government increases border security and immigration enforcement.” Only 18% disagreed, with 7% unsure."
LOL, might as well just ask "Do you think illegal immigrants deserve not to be shot at by a firing squad in deference to human dignity"?
"Do you agree with deporting illegal immigrants with their citizen children if (1) the kid is a minor and (2) the illegal immigrant made social comments favoring socialism and Hamas."
Yeah, let's see the percentage of republicans who would agree to that.
Americans supposedly want massive deportation of ONLY criminal illegal immigrants, but wait a minute - immigrants don't commit that much violent crime!
Huh. So Donald Trump scored the biggest political comeback and the largest share of Latino support for a republican candidate because people were desperate to deport like 2000 illegal murderers and rapists. I'm sorry, was there some recent massive increase of violent crimes committed by illegals that led to this? Did Asians suddenly become more violent as a group?
People want the migrants out, dude. All the hemming and hawing about "human dignity" and "separating families" is people making some exceptions for illegals who were long time residents. They expect every family caught trying to cross the border deported. They expect every family whose asylum claims are denied out of the country. If any illegal commits violent crime, they want them out. If an illegal is a public nuisance like Johnny Somali rather than a "violent criminal", they want them out.
Trump won because illegal immigration basically reached super saiyan level thanks to the caravans and voters who were usually moderate on that issue decided to act. Simple.
Laken Riley and AJ Wise unavailable for comment.
You use the word 'illegal' but feel you need something more, something substantial. But 'illegal' means : IT SHOULD NOT BE
I want the rule of law. I also want Congress to do its job and liberalize our immigration policies. Until they do, however, I want the rule of law. That does, based on past failed enforcement, mean we will need to begin mass deportations. If that causes economic harm or really upsets people, then maybe that will serve as a necessary catalyst for change. Yet, even if it does not, I want the rule of law. Mass deportations? So be it.