The Many Faces of US Politics...

[J70]

You and Eamonn are claiming that they're some right wing talking points -they're not

I,  speaking as an independent voter,  expect a full blown crisis at the southern border with millions of people flooding in should a Democrat who holds these views get elected

The label "open borders" is a right wing talking point. I'm sure it's been well focus-grouped by the likes of Frank Luntz. Just because some Dems used it urging caution doesn't change that.

I've said nothing either way about the pros and cons of the actual proposal to decriminalize illegal entry.

[whitey]

Putting the label aside for a moment, do you think that the number of people crossing illegally will rise if it's decriminalized?

[J70]

Putting the label aside for a moment, do you think that the number of people crossing illegally will rise if it's decriminalized?

Its possible, of course.

But, I don't know what role the potential penalty plays, if any, in the decision to leave Guatemala or Nicaragua and trek across Mexico before trying to sneak in. Does the average person fleeing gang violence in those countries or hoping to stay with a relative to find work care if they'll possibly be jailed instead of deported straight away if caught? Is there any evidence that it has been a deterrent, especially with criminal enforcement presumably up under Trump?

I'm sure there is research out there.

[Gmac]

take a look at what are common diseases in Guatemala and see what u think,  but there should be a revolving door at the border according to eamon j70 and his fellow Democrats

Only an imbecile would be unable to grasp there is a vast swath of grey between a closed border and an open border.

Did you realise that by making it solely a civil, rather than also criminal offence - the US borderland security could more quickly remove illegals from US soil?

Doubt Fox News told you that.


What Castro is referring to is Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, which stipulates that anyone caught crossing the border illegally is to be tried before a judge and fined, imprisoned for up to two years, or both. At no point does it provide for deportation. Deportation is the penalty for the civil offense of illegal immigration. The criminal offense outlined in Section 1325 simply puts illegal immigrants through the criminal justice system and imprisons them for up to two years.

if u  cross border and surrender to border patrol u are released in the us and are given a court date to show up to court and plea your case (10% of people show up)for amnesty , if you enter illegally and are caught u are locked up and deported which is proper order , only a sick imbecile would be hoping the corona virus would be the reason a president lost an election.

Only 10 percent show up for hearings?

As soon as I read this, I knew it was completely wrong. And I haven't lived in the States for nearly 25 years.

It literally took me 10secs on Google to find this link - by using the search terms "percentage of illegal immigrants who attend hearings following catch and release"

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/10/21059924/trump-asylum-seekers-show-up-court-hearing

So if you're basic premise is wrong, why should anyone believe anything else you say re immigration? The vast majority of people who cross the border want to be there legally, want to obey laws and pay taxes (which they do whilst illegal and percentage wise are more law abiding than citizens) and are an economic boon to the communities they live in.

The information to educate yourself is keystrokes away. You should try it.

educate yourself says the guy quoting vox don't believe too much they report .
The acting dhs secretary McAleenan said at a may 23rd senate Judiciary Committee hearing that 90% of final deportation orders were given to absent parolees.  I live in the community you are talking about but you know more than me ? I would never start talking about Ireland like I know more than you do and base my claims from a google search.

[J70]

Yeah, the Vox article in question only reports (and links to) academic research as well as reports from Trump's own DOJ.

[RadioGAAGAA]

Putting the label aside for a moment, do you think that the number of people crossing illegally will rise if it's decriminalized?

Probably would - at least initially.

But the cost to the US taxpayer of removing them would be reduced as they aren't housed in US prisons before being deported. (Not to mention the costs of the criminal proceedings within the legal system).

Therefore, chances are it'd be a net reduction in cost to the US taxpayer.

Isn't that not what you are really after?



Then consider the longer term benefits:
1. they are straight back where they started with nothing gained and thus are more likely to be disillusioned with trying again (and somewhat embarrassed by ending up facing the same people they told last week they were off to the US).
2. they don't get the opportunity to make criminal connections in prison - which then lead to cross-border criminal operations.
3. US prisons may be a better environment than some of the places the immigrants are coming from. So prison is not a deterrent.
3. any jump in numbers of people arriving at the border initially would quickly subside as greater numbers would be getting deported back.

[Gmac]

Yeah, the Vox article in question only reports (and links to) academic research as well as reports from Trump's own DOJ.

in my original post I should have stated 10% show to the final hearing , doesn't change the fact

[whitey]

Putting the label aside for a moment, do you think that the number of people crossing illegally will rise if it's decriminalized?

Probably would - at least initially.

But the cost to the US taxpayer of removing them would be reduced as they aren't housed in US prisons before being deported. (Not to mention the costs of the criminal proceedings within the legal system).

Therefore, chances are it'd be a net reduction in cost to the US taxpayer.

Isn't that not what you are really after?



Then consider the longer term benefits:
1. they are straight back where they started with nothing gained and thus are more likely to be disillusioned with trying again (and somewhat embarrassed by ending up facing the same people they told last week they were off to the US).
2. they don't get the opportunity to make criminal connections in prison - which then lead to cross-border criminal operations.
3. US prisons may be a better environment than some of the places the immigrants are coming from. So prison is not a deterrent.
3. any jump in numbers of people arriving at the border initially would quickly subside as greater numbers would be getting deported back.

Given that the presumptive Democratic nominees will guarantee benefits for these new arrivals, I can't even imagine what a cluster debacle it will become

[RadioGAAGAA]

Given that the presumptive Democratic nominees will guarantee benefits for these new arrivals, I can't even imagine what a cluster debacle it will become

Say they didn't and instead insisted on immediate deportation - would you then be OK with it?

[whitey]

Given that the presumptive Democratic nominees will guarantee benefits for these new arrivals, I can't even imagine what a cluster debacle it will become

Say they didn't and instead insisted on immediate deportation - would you then be OK with it?

We should not be encouraging, facilitating or accommodating people who enter the country illegally

There are millions upon millions of people here already without documentation

Let's get them squared away first

[RadioGAAGAA]

Given that the presumptive Democratic nominees will guarantee benefits for these new arrivals, I can't even imagine what a cluster debacle it will become

Say they didn't and instead insisted on immediate deportation - would you then be OK with it?

We should not be encouraging, facilitating or accommodating people who enter the country illegally

There are millions upon millions of people here already without documentation

Let's get them squared away first

But it would be quicker to get them away if they didn't have to spend up to 2 years in prison but were instead immediately deported.

Furthermore, by housing someone in prison, you are directly accommodating them.

I'm really not seeing the logic of your position once you step past the perception of "decriminalisation" and realise it would actually speed up deportations.

[Eamonnca1]

Given that the presumptive Democratic nominees will guarantee benefits for these new arrivals, I can't even imagine what a cluster debacle it will become

Say they didn't and instead insisted on immediate deportation - would you then be OK with it?

We should not be encouraging, facilitating or accommodating people who enter the country illegally

There are millions upon millions of people here already without documentation

Let's get them squared away first

But it would be quicker to get them away if they didn't have to spend up to 2 years in prison but were instead immediately deported.

Furthermore, by housing someone in prison, you are directly accommodating them.

I'm really not seeing the logic of your position once you step past the perception of "decriminalisation" and realise it would actually speed up deportations.

Less profitable for private human warehousing prison companies.

[Gmac]

Putting the label aside for a moment, do you think that the number of people crossing illegally will rise if it's decriminalized?

Probably would - at least initially.

But the cost to the US taxpayer of removing them would be reduced as they aren't housed in US prisons before being deported. (Not to mention the costs of the criminal proceedings within the legal system).

Therefore, chances are it'd be a net reduction in cost to the US taxpayer.

Isn't that not what you are really after?



Then consider the longer term benefits:
1. they are straight back where they started with nothing gained and thus are more likely to be disillusioned with trying again (and somewhat embarrassed by ending up facing the same people they told last week they were off to the US).
2. they don't get the opportunity to make criminal connections in prison - which then lead to cross-border criminal operations.
3. US prisons may be a better environment than some of the places the immigrants are coming from. So prison is not a deterrent.
3. any jump in numbers of people arriving at the border initially would quickly subside as greater numbers would be getting deported back.

apprehended people are held in detention centers not the local county jail with murderers and rapists .

[RadioGAAGAA]

apprehended people are held in detention centers not the local county jail with murderers and rapists .

Pre or post sentencing?

Those detention centres won't come for free either of course. Google says around $130/adult/day & $300/mother-children/day. Thats $47k/adult/year and $110k/mother-children/year.
So it seems whether its a prison or detention centre, the cost is still significant.

Interjet would fly you one way from Dallas to Mexico City for $130. A chartered jet will do it significantly cheaper than that too.

[seafoid]

Given that the presumptive Democratic nominees will guarantee benefits for these new arrivals, I can't even imagine what a cluster debacle it will become

Say they didn't and instead insisted on immediate deportation - would you then be OK with it?

We should not be encouraging, facilitating or accommodating people who enter the country illegally

There are millions upon millions of people here already without documentation

Let's get them squared away first

But it would be quicker to get them away if they didn't have to spend up to 2 years in prison but were instead immediately deported.

Furthermore, by housing someone in prison, you are directly accommodating them.

I'm really not seeing the logic of your position once you step past the perception of "decriminalisation" and realise it would actually speed up deportations.

Less profitable for private human warehousing prison companies.

Incarceration is 8% of US GDP
Compared to.less than 1% elsewhere.
It is a  scam to.enrich the richest.

US healthcare is 17% of GDP
Compared to.c 10% elsewhere.
It is another scam.

Incarceration  plus sickness cost 25% of GDP
This is nuts