[postcarnival]

I'm sorry but I strongly disagree. There is a CLEAR distinction between who is here legally and who is here illegally. In fact we have specific laws that define precisely the difference. I don't feel sorry for people that have come here illegally, afterall they broke the law as their first action to get here. I think a big problem is that we've gone so long kicking the can down the road that people (esp in California) have become used to this status quo where we turn a blind eye. Now that Trump has come in and promised to actually enforce our already existing laws, the left has exploded in anger thinking "how could he?!". I have followed this election closely and I have yet to hear a single thing that leads me to think he is going to deport legal citizens of any background whatsoever or that he'll discriminate against them. It's simply untrue. DJT loves America more than any President in our modern time and our country will grow strong under his leadership.

[idlewords]

One thing you must realize is that the median undocumented immigrant has been here 12 years. Many of these people have children who are American citizens, so if you promise to deport them, you're in effect saying you want to break up families.

Maybe that's fine with you. I don't think it sits well with a lot of people.

Realize as well that immigration status is a precarious thing, and it's not always clear who is here legally and who is not. Many people spend a long time in administrative limbo. I was in the US for seven years before I learned I was "legal".

Like many things, immigration is less clear-cut when you look at it in detail. I encourage you to do that, whether or not you end up agreeing with me.

[pcwalton]

> I don't feel sorry for people that have come here illegally, afterall they broke the law as their first action to get here.

You are casually dismissing the group of people who are the main focus of controversy: people who arrived as children and have been here all their lives. They have never known the country they would be deported to. They are Americans by lived experience. They broke no laws.

I am simply not comfortable deporting those people. It brings us no benefit whatsoever.

> I have followed this election closely and I have yet to hear a single thing that leads me to think he is going to deport legal citizens of any background whatsoever

If you have a "deportation force" that operates on the kind of scale he claims to want at the speed he wants, you are obviously going to deport some citizens. It happened during Operation Wetback and there is no reason to think it would not happen again. People just don't always have their papers in order, and the immigration courts are backed up for years.

[postcarnival]

Would you be more agreeable if we gave amnesty to all existing illegals and then cracked down hard and built a much stronger border going forward? Where is the common ground?

[pcwalton]

I don't know what "cracked down hard" is supposed to mean, so I can't answer that.

I do know that I would be hard-pressed to come up with a more expensive, pointless, and futile way to attempt to restrict illegal immigration than building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, though.

[idlewords]

Building a wall on the Canadian border.

[postcarnival]

Cracked down meaning we are not letting in illegal immigrants period. As far as the cost, you're incorrect so please do some research. The cost of building a border wall is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of taking care of the illegals each year.

[tptacek]

Look at what you're writing. The US has had the policy you advocate for dozens of years; that's why they're called "illegal" immigrants.

Meanwhile: since 2000, the number of by-land unauthorized immigrants to the US has plummeted, with the share of unauthorized immigrants who simply overstay visas approaching 50%.

"The wall" isn't bad policy because it's inhumane. I care deeply about not deporting unauthorized immigrants but not even a little about the social impact of a big ugly wall in our big ugly southwest states.

"The wall" is bad policy because it's an extremely expensive make-work project that won't actually meaningfully reduce unauthorized immigration. It doesn't matter how high the wall is. Even the unauthorized immigrants who get here on land aren't running across open field land borders. The policy is a con, meant to appeal to a popular misconception of who unauthorized immigrants in this country are and how they got here.

You are like 2-3 Google searches away from verifying for yourself how stupid this particular use of funds is regardless of your opinions about immigration.

[postcarnival]

First off, the southwest states are anything but "big ugly". The wall isn't an endgame solution it's part of a larger shift in overall policy to actually enforce our existing immigration laws which will also include booting people who have overstayed their visa. We should also look to revamp our immigration process to allow legal immigrants in faster (10 years is way too long) and incentivize those who will ADD to America to come here. I agree the wall is in some ways symbolic but it is functional as well. Google secured fence act as HRC was also on board with it.