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?
In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called innocent. There are thousands of innocent people being deported.
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.
>In our country, someone who hasn't been convicted or otherwise adjudicated of a crime is called 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 am sorry, but "you are dumb" is not an argument. I just do not care about the law at all+. Far too often have I seen justice abused in the name of the law. Any appeal to some supposed legality just rings entirely hollow.
Either the government acts justly and I support their actions or it acts unjustly and I will oppose that action. Whatever some piece of paper says or does not say I do not mind.
+ Of course I care about it in so far I have to understand how getting into conflict with the prevalent interpretation of it will have consequence for me or my family or my friends. I pay my taxes, after all.
> There are thousands of innocent people being deported.
Right, the only crime they committed was entering and remaining in the country illegally. And now they’re facing deportation by this unjust administration.
The Cato article says specifically that nearly half the people they were able to get in touch with didn’t seem to enter illegally OR otherwise violate their immigration status
There are plenty of people the administration is trying to deport who neither entered nor remained in the country illegally.
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.
Do you think that such a deportation would make the US more or less appealing for immigration? After all, every immigrant has to suspect that they might become a target of such an enforcement action as well.
Of course it would make the US less appealing, 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.
Back to your claim about this being an "effective" immigration policy: no it's not.
I think it is pretty dishonest how you are asserting that I am making arguments, which I never made.
>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.
Notably, deporting US citizens would also make the US less appealing for immigration. Would you agree with that? Since fewer people would want to travel to a country where even its own citizens are not safe living there.
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?
Sure, if you can think of better deterrents for migration and better ways to deport more people, then those should be tried as well.
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 heard of outlawing? It works so well. People immediately stop doing things that are outlawed.
(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.
> 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.
As a European I am not particularly invested in how the US legal system wants to protect non-citizens "rights". I just hope that the EU learns how effective immigration deterrence looks and can make the appropriate legal changes, here in Europe we do not have attachments to centuries old legal concepts, so I think this issue just does not appear here.
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.
I'd advise finding his real identity and torturing and abusing him if he is found anywhere. We must support people in how they wish to be treated and abusing him physically with disregard to the law is in accordance with his own wish.
Post your identifications so I can tip the relevant authorities in all countries other than yours to deport or jail you on sight. I wish to help you achieve your goals so I hope you post the details. If you don't then it is safe to assume youare a spy and terrorist and should be executed on spot. Don't cite pointless legal bullshit, you dont believe in that crap.
Surprised to see that you are unaware of the literal shit ton of rich immigrants in the US. A majority of them escaping their home countries after robbing and destroying them. This is so common that it’s an easy and repetitive plot in 2nd/3rd tier action/drama series.
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.
>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.