/s?

Otherwise you're proving his point, which is that there's no middle ground, only "ICE raids terrorizing people" and "sanctuary cities/states where local governments refuse to do any sort of immigration enforcement and specifically turn a blind eye to immigration status".

▲

sosomoxie 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, well I don't think we should deport people and I think immigrants improve the US, so I would be in the latter category. He's "waiting to hear of alternatives that don't involve deporting illegal immigrants", and I have one: don't deport anyone.

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>Yes, well I don't think we should deport people and I think immigrants improve the US, so I would be in the latter category

Which would put you in the minority (16%).

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2025/03/26/am...

Even without getting into a debate of whether we should do immigration enforcement at all (a sibling reply goes into it in better detail), there's the practical effect that most people do, and if Democrats don't oblige, people like Trump will get in power instead.

	▲	sosomoxie 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think the Democrats are also culpable for supporting anti-immigrant policy and sentiment. I absolutely believe that I'm in the minority, as this country has a deep history in racial bias (in fact, it was founded on that).

▲

direwolf20 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What actual, concrete benefit do you see from deporting immigrants?

▲

PlanksVariable 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The question is about deporting illegal immigrants specifically, i.e. people who are in a country in violated of its immigration laws.

I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law. If we don’t have immigration laws, we have an open border and with an open border, we can’t regulate the rate at which people enter the country. This rate can easily exceed the amount that the country reasonably accommodate, which negative impact on housing, healthcare, welfare, transportation, civic cohesion, and education systems.

Immigration law is standard around the world, with deportation being the standard response to people who violate that law. The more interesting question here is how you think a modern country will function and continue serving the needs of its citizens when it stops enforcing its immigration laws.

▲

direwolf20 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

What if a law only has consequences for the people it's intended for?

Let's say you have a requirement that all TVs should be registered, so you can make sure every TV owner has a TV licence. You find an unregistered TV, but the owner has a TV licence. Does it make sense to confiscate the TV? What purpose would that serve?

Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?

▲

gruez 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

>Let's say you have a law that all people entering a country must be scrutinized to ensure no serial killers get in. You find a guy who hasn't been scrutinized, but he's not a serial killer. Does it make sense to confiscate the guy? What purpose would that serve?

To ensure that people go through the checkpoint in the first place? For instance, the point of airport security checkpoints is to make sure that no terrorists get on planes, but if there's no penalty for you jumping the fence, why would people even bother going through the checkpoint?

And all of this is ignoring the other purposes of immigration policy, eg. preserving jobs or whatever.

▲

direwolf20 16 minutes ago | parent [-]

Is the goal making sure everyone goes through the serial killer checkpoint, or is the goal stopping serial killers?

▲

gruez 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

So the is implication is that we should get rid of airport checkpoints, because our actual goal is to catch terrorists? What about speed enforcement cameras? The law might be that you drive 20 in a school zone, but isn't our goal to actually stop dangerous drivers? Actually, why even bother stopping dangerous drivers? The actual thing we care about is stopping accidents. If you're doing street racing at 4am, who's going to get hit?

	▲	direwolf20 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No, that is not the implication. Very obvious (thus failed) deflection going on here.

▲

ok_dad an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> I think the main benefit is the same as with any law: if you have a law with no consequences for the people who break it, you don’t really have a law.

How do you feel about ICE raiding citizens homes without warrants? How about door to door raids?

If ICE cannot even follow the 4th and 5th amendments then they should be jailed themselves.

▲

PlanksVariable an hour ago | parent [-]

They currently use administrative warrants but I’m in favor of requiring judicial warrants.

▲

fzeroracer an hour ago | parent [-]

Boss, they already require judicial warrants. They're blatantly violating constitutional rights. Do you think we have constitutional rights or not? Do we have laws or not?

▲

PlanksVariable 44 minutes ago | parent [-]

I agree, but I’m clarifying the facts: they’re claiming an administrative warrant gives them authority to enter a house, not no warrant as OP stated.

	▲	jfyi 14 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Great, since we are all in agreement, let's see if we can put it clear terms. Administrative warrants are civil in nature and do not give authority to enter a house or any private space. Using them as such is in violation of the fourth amendment.
	▲	direwolf20 16 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		An administrative warrant is just an email from their boss telling them to do it. It's not a real thing
	▲	22 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

gruez 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>you see from deporting immigrants?

Nice job sneakily changing "immigration enforcement" to "deporting immigrants".

▲

jfyi 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's a false dilemma either way. "You are with ICE or you are pro-illegal immigration".

...and that's best case scenario, giving the benefit of the doubt.