>which actually has the effect of keeping dangerous people (always been high-priority) in the country longer.
I agree. The processing should be much faster. The detentions are so stupid, just get them on a plane.
> the processing should be much faster
And what do you call it if you slow down the processing, fill it with innocent people, and also get yourself bogged down in thousands of extremely costly (time, money, and focus) civil rights lawsuits?
Answer: a very stupid policy.
Perhaps these people committed crimes or administrative violations, perhaps not, but until they've been determined as such, they're correctly called innocent with no quotes.
GP is speaking specifically about that subset of people when they use the word innocent.
Total nonsense. This only applies to the state. Individuals are totally free to believe that a person not convicted of a crime or even proclaimed innocent by the state, is in fact not innocent.
If your legalistic fiction of innocence was correct, then individuals would have to believe that the law is the infallible representation of morality, which is an abhorrent claim. What I meant by the quotes around innocent is that the state has not yet deemed them criminal, but I disagree with the state on that assessment.
I struggle to see how you might know so much about these people - whose names we don’t even know - that you can have an opinion about their innocence.
No need to respond if you don’t think you need information to form an opinion. I will assume that.
Right, the only crime they committed was entering and remaining in the country illegally. And now they’re facing deportation by this unjust administration.
For example, Rumeysa Ozturk who was arrested for engaging in 1st Amendment protected speech and put into deportation proceedings despite entering the country legally, staying in the country legally, and breaking none of our country's laws.
It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate.
Back to your claim about this being an "effective" immigration policy: no it's not.
>which means the immigrants with the most optionality of where to go (like researchers, engineers, and high value contributors in general) are disproportionately likely to seek other destinations.
>It would have the least deterrent force on those who are already criminal and otherwise lawless or desperate.
Completely agree. But I want the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors" even less than the rest. Those groups are actually harder to remove, they often have institutional support in the form of corporations and other associations and might feasibly be positive fiscal contributors. With "the rest" the argument for deportation is far simpler and has far more support in the population. Also my labor competes with the "researchers, engineers, and high value contributors", while "the rest" only depresses the wages of the proletariat who now have to compete with black market labor.
As for the rest of your comment: lol, lmao even
As mentioned in the other thread: mud-farmer zero sum thinking.
Considering your other arguments above, I assume you are also volunteering to be one of the people deported from the EU for the sake of making it less appealing for immigration?
In fact, some were granted asylum.
If you think this is an issue you should easily be able to find dozens of cases.
My claim is quite clear: legal immigrants who have not committed any crime or administrative violations have 1) been deported, 2) without due process, and 3) to a foreign torture camp.
Any ONE of those elements is illegal with regard to legal immigrants, and items 2 and 3 are illegal even with regard solely to illegal immigrants.
Btw this is not including people whose TPS was canceled and were “made illegal” overnight, of which there are hundreds of thousands now.
https://www.cato.org/blog/50-venezuelans-imprisoned-el-salva...
Right now I think these measures are extremely effective, especially at deterrence and I do not see what your arguments against this being an effective deterrence really is. One good step from the legislative would be removing the legal basis for the civil rights lawsuits, so they can be thrown out immediately.
You mean the Constitution's 5th Amendment? No thank you, I'll keep that one around.
> Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well.
A little known fact is that the Constitution is actually meant to make life difficult for the government. It is not up to the rest of us to come up with Constitutionally valid alternatives to the administration's preferred course of action. That's their job.
One idea which should be explored, both in the US and the EU, is that all lawsuits against immigration decisions have to be paid, either ongoing or up front, by the person who would be affected by the immigration enforcement.
Given that the topic is US immigration policy it sure seems like it is relevant.
And that the US populous not only despises these people, but people from both sides of the political spectrum actually want the opposite types as immigrants.
(You are talking about deterring from legal immigration as you have explained in a sibling comment as well, and I am recommending outlawing legal immigration)
I am not against immigration. Though I am not for illegal immigration, nor do I see the need to spend so much money and energy on deportations, while destroying innocent lives, where a standard border many countries maintain every day would suffice.