var iceberg = { tip : "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on" }
Edit: It could be that I overreacted. I would recommend to read the full quote after the link and not conclude based on small out of context quote.
If you want a historical analogy that helps you to better connect with the situation under question then I would recommend to think about immigration of Germans into South America after WWII.
This is what at least comes into my mind. I do not know if this analogy would be fair to either parties.
Also it does not follow that I would recommend you to support one of the candidates based on this. If you happen to be an American.
Well, first off, legality in immigration is a cloudy term, meaning it's often tried in immigration courts, of which there are 58 in the entire country [1]. Also notable is that you are not appointed a lawyer in these courts [2]. There are only 250 judges in the country, handling more than 3 times the cases regular judges do [3]. Here's one example of an American being deported: [4].
This is the case right now. Ramping up deportation as Trump has suggested would obviously not yield better results. The immigration courts right now have a backlog of more than half a million cases [5]. I've not even touched stop-and-frisk, religious profiling, etc.
Now, and this part is speculation, this part of history comes to mind: [6]. If it's TLDR, then search for "repatriation".
I wonder why it is that your legalese is only applied to people who say that illegal immigration is a bad thing.
Lots of people openly say that we should tolerate illegal immigration either for economic or humanitarian reasons, and I've never seen such an argument applied to them.