[tptacek]

Congress sets the standards under which a green card can be revoked, not the executive branch on the whim of the President or one of his agencies. The rules are in the Immigration and Nationalization Act. It is a false statement to say that the terms green card holders were here under included "can be sent back for any time for no reason".

As a green card holder, you are not a US LPR at the discretion of the President or any of his agencies. You have, in effect, a contract with our country. Congress could change the rules, but until they do, you have substantial rights to remain in this country.

Even people without LPR status are difficult for the government to remove. Among undocumented immigrants put before immigration court for deportation, over 70% of those with legal representation prevail in court --- unfortunately, in most places in the US, they have no right to counsel, which is why we should all be sending money to immigration law organizations.

[nrjdhsbsid]

How many of those previaled because deportation is politically unpopular in certain areas? There's a lot of places that won't deport you even for murdering someone, and indeed our prisons in some states are filled with loads of murderous foreign gang members

[tptacek]

They prevailed in immigration court, where many defendants are forced to represent themselves in complicated legal proceedings without counsel and are as a result deported. I don't think public sympathy with immigrants is the most powerful vector is; I think it's the rule of law that's keeping them in the country.

It is numerically, overwhelmingly the case that immigrants to this country aren't a threat to its citizens, and that we have more to fear from lawnmowers and lightning strikes than we do from the people who are being turned away at the borders today, including people coming to the country to work on computational epidemiology and, of course, the spouses of our own citizens.

[nrjdhsbsid]

The biggest issue with illegal immigration is that is does not benefit the United States. A country is not a charity.

The US would be far better off allowing the same number of people in but only those highly educated or those with a lot of money or status. It sounds mean but job of the US govt is not to rescue poor people in third world countries, it's to benefit it's citizens.

Imagine if instead of 6-8 million illegal immigrants with largely low educations, limited English skills and earning potential, no money, and no status we let in 6 million CEO's, scientists, politicians, and billionaires. It's hard to argue that the current situation is in any way "better"

[jaimebuelta]

All the studies point that illegal immigrants positively contribute to the receiving country economy. They consume less public resources (they exercise less rights because, well, they're ilegal; as well as being in average young and healthy) and pay most taxes.

Most ilegal immigrants want to move towards a legal status and integrate successfully in the country.

The "burden" of ilegal immigrants is mostly false.

[nrjdhsbsid]

If illegal immigrants are not a burden why control immigration at all! Let's just let anyone that wants to come here fly on over.

This would lead to the country being completely overwhelmed like is happening in Europe. Did Germany stop letting in unlimited refugees because they were helping the country so much?

[tptacek]

I don't know what you're arguing about, but they're detaining and rejecting lawful permanent residents of the country right now. At LAX, ACLU is fighting for --- and is not at all assured of winning --- the admission of an 11 month old American Citizen and his LPR mother, who is two weeks from her citizenship ceremony.

[pcwalton]

> The biggest issue with illegal immigration is that is does not benefit the United States.

Yes, it does. Empirically.

> A country is not a charity.

Countries are obliged to admit refugees.

> It sounds mean but job of the US govt is not to rescue poor people in third world countries, it's to benefit it's citizens.

"Mean" is an interesting way to put "contrary to domestic and international laws and universal human rights [1]".

[1]: See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14.