illegal immigrants in jail

[Anonymous]

This article got me thinking. Is there a downside to deporting illegal immigrants?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209444.html?hpid=sec-metro

I am the world's biggest proponent of immigration. I'm married to an immigrant. I lived overseas and considered emigrating myself (eventually came back). I do not get my back up about illegal immigration, because I believe that people have the right to self-determination, and I am awed by the work ethic and courage many immigrants, documented or not, bring here.

However... as a bleeding-heart, pro-immigration liberal, I think I can get on board with deporting illegal immigrants (and maybe even resident aliens) convicted of violent crimes. It's one thing (a good thing) to offer social services to contributing members of society (emergency rooms etc) regardless of immigration status, but it seems wasteful and wrong for us to foot the bill for incarcerating non-citizens. Is that consistent?

[Anonymous]

I see nothing inconsistent with that.

[Anonymous]

To further elaborate why I don't think it's inconsistent -- I agree that people should be allowed to live where they want in theory. But that right doesn't trump the need to be non-violent, etc. I would have more of a problem with the deportation of those convicted of very minor crimes like shoplifting, etc. But there's a large element of illegal immigrants here who have grown up during wars and who are extremely violent. I lose no sleep at night thinking of their deportation.

[Anonymous]

I'm also a liberal/progressive. If undocumented workers want to work here no problem. They're productive. But if they're violent - rapists, murderers, pedophlies, then ship their asses back to where they came from.

[Anonymous]

Yup toodaloo. And we need a process for documentation. If you are against law-breaking, being here without docs is breaking the law. Why does anyone get a 'pass' on this in 2009?

[Anonymous]

I don't know. Drug trafficking is a huge business and it's not a violent crime. I think those that are all for no sort of regulations on immigration feel that way because we live in a world that has them. I don't love our immigration laws but I do believe we need to have a process for immigration. How can a country provide for its citizens when there is no restrictions on the way people can come? Wouldn't everyone just flock to the wealthiest countries?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article got me thinking. Is there a downside to deporting illegal immigrants?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/12/AR2009111209444.html?hpid=sec-metro

I am the world's biggest proponent of immigration. I'm married to an immigrant. I lived overseas and considered emigrating myself (eventually came back). I do not get my back up about illegal immigration, because I believe that people have the right to self-determination, and I am awed by the work ethic and courage many immigrants, documented or not, bring here.

However... as a bleeding-heart, pro-immigration liberal, I think I can get on board with deporting illegal immigrants (and maybe even resident aliens) convicted of violent crimes. It's one thing (a good thing) to offer social services to contributing members of society (emergency rooms etc) regardless of immigration status, but it seems wasteful and wrong for us to foot the bill for incarcerating non-citizens. Is that consistent?

You mean for free? What are you offering. That is my tax dollar. Also, who pays the doctors in the ER that are "offered up". Look, they are breaking the law, and I sense that the tail is starting to wag the dog. They need to be sent home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. Drug trafficking is a huge business and it's not a violent crime. I think those that are all for no sort of regulations on immigration feel that way because we live in a world that has them. I don't love our immigration laws but I do believe we need to have a process for immigration. How can a country provide for its citizens when there is no restrictions on the way people can come? Wouldn't everyone just flock to the wealthiest countries?

Please explain this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. Drug trafficking is a huge business and it's not a violent crime. I think those that are all for no sort of regulations on immigration feel that way because we live in a world that has them. I don't love our immigration laws but I do believe we need to have a process for immigration. How can a country provide for its citizens when there is no restrictions on the way people can come? Wouldn't everyone just flock to the wealthiest countries?

Please explain this.

People with drug chrages and convictions are not considered violent criminals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. Drug trafficking is a huge business and it's not a violent crime. I think those that are all for no sort of regulations on immigration feel that way because we live in a world that has them. I don't love our immigration laws but I do believe we need to have a process for immigration. How can a country provide for its citizens when there is no restrictions on the way people can come? Wouldn't everyone just flock to the wealthiest countries?

Please explain this.

People with drug chrages and convictions are not considered violent criminals.

Well, I think there's a huge difference between a drug user and a drug trafficker. There's an outrageous amount of violence associated with the people making the bucks off of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. Drug trafficking is a huge business and it's not a violent crime. I think those that are all for no sort of regulations on immigration feel that way because we live in a world that has them. I don't love our immigration laws but I do believe we need to have a process for immigration. How can a country provide for its citizens when there is no restrictions on the way people can come? Wouldn't everyone just flock to the wealthiest countries?

Please explain this.

People with drug chrages and convictions are not considered violent criminals.

Well, I think there's a huge difference between a drug user and a drug trafficker. There's an outrageous amount of violence associated with the people making the bucks off of this.

BUUUT the user contributes to the trafficking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. Drug trafficking is a huge business and it's not a violent crime. I think those that are all for no sort of regulations on immigration feel that way because we live in a world that has them. I don't love our immigration laws but I do believe we need to have a process for immigration. How can a country provide for its citizens when there is no restrictions on the way people can come? Wouldn't everyone just flock to the wealthiest countries?

Please explain this.

People with drug chrages and convictions are not considered violent criminals.

Well, I think there's a huge difference between a drug user and a drug trafficker. There's an outrageous amount of violence associated with the people making the bucks off of this.

I agree with the violence associated with drug trafficking. But the PP's were talking about deporting those convicted of violent crimes. When you have a drug conviction, whether it's possession or distribution you are considered, and treated as a non-violent criminal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know. Drug trafficking is a huge business and it's not a violent crime. I think those that are all for no sort of regulations on immigration feel that way because we live in a world that has them. I don't love our immigration laws but I do believe we need to have a process for immigration. How can a country provide for its citizens when there is no restrictions on the way people can come? Wouldn't everyone just flock to the wealthiest countries?

Please explain this.

People with drug chrages and convictions are not considered violent criminals.

Well, I think there's a huge difference between a drug user and a drug trafficker. There's an outrageous amount of violence associated with the people making the bucks off of this.

I agree with the violence associated with drug trafficking. But the PP's were talking about deporting those convicted of violent crimes. When you have a drug conviction, whether it's possession or distribution you are considered, and treated as a non-violent criminal.

This is unbelievable. Anyone caught residing in this country illegally should be deported because they are criminals.

[Anonymous]

Starting the path to citizenship in this country by breaking the law does not seem the best first step. Also, what's up with 'anchor babies'??? Causes needless confusion. Expand legal immigration and crack down on employers of illegals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...
This is unbelievable. Anyone caught residing in this country illegally should be deported because they are criminals.

Distinction: Illegal is not the same as criminal. When I drive 60 mph in a 55 mph zone, I am doing something illegal, but I am not a criminal. There are civil offenses and criminal offenses. Being in the country without documentation is a civil offense and does not make an illegal (more precisely, undocumented) alien a criminal.