[JumpCrisscross]

> They’re cheating

"Of course, 'It is illegal and unconstitutional to deport, detain for deportation, or recommend deportation of a U.S. citizen.' See Lyttle v. United States, 867 F.Supp.2d 1256 (M.D. Ga. 2012) (citing Tuan Anh Nguyen v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 533 U.S. 53, 67 (2001) (affirming that a citizen has the 'absolute right to enter [the United States] borders'); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969) ('This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement.')" [1].

To the extent someone is unequivocally cheating, it's ICE.

[1] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.21...

[koolba]

If you read the complete sentence you’d realize I’m referring to cheating against every other potential immigrant to come to the USA.

> To the extent someone is unequivocally cheating, it's ICE.

So what exactly is ICE supposed to do if they are deporting the illegal alien mother and child is a citizen? Forget the possibility of a deported father. Say a single mother with no legal status is being deported.

Does she not get the option to take her child with her?

If she didn’t take the child the same people would be likely be screaming about ICE separating families.

Kids are not a get out of jail free card.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you’d realize I’m referring to cheating against every other potential immigrant to come to the USA

I know. I'm pointing out that the mother's illegal immigration is outweighed by ICE's illegal detention, deportation and wilful abrogation of legal and constitutional rights of a U.S. citizen.

> what exactly is ICE supposed to do if they are deporting the illegal alien mother and child is a citizen?

Follow the law. In this case, that would involve transfering the child to her designated custodian [1].

> If she didn’t take the child the same people would be likely be screaming about ICE separating families

Not an excuse for breaking the law!

[1] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69940863/1/v-m-l-v-harp...

[shadowgovt]

In a debate between the concrete reality of US children being kicked out of the country and hypothetical potential non-citizens not being able to become a citizen, I will side with the child every time. I don't think that's a radical position.

Here's an interesting question: are undocumented immigrants actually stopping non-citizens from becoming citizens? These two things are actually quite independent, yes? You're building a very similar argument to "piracy is bad because it takes money out of the hands of the RIAA."

[koolba]

> Here's an interesting question: are undocumented immigrants actually stopping non-citizens from becoming citizens? These two things are actually quite independent, yes? You're building a very similar argument to "piracy is bad because it takes money out of the hands of the RIAA."

So in your analogy the RIAA are the huddled masses yearning to breathe free that respect immigration laws?

[shadowgovt]

In your analogy, are undocumented immigrants not the huddled masses yearning to breathe free?

[koolba]

Of course. But they’re supposed to arrive at ports of entry and follow the process.

While it has no legal significance, that poem is written on base of the Statue of Liberty next to the immigration center at Ellis Island. It’s a pretty wild take to think that it’s means that people should cut down barbed wire fences and sneak into the country under the cover of darkness.

[shadowgovt]

While we were tracking humans coming into America via ship back to the 1820s, the formal data collection approximating the modern system didn't even begin until 1891, seven years after the Statue was gifted to the US.

The "wild take" (which is, honestly, quite mundane) is the barbed wire fences don't even need to be up. We got along for a century and change soft-handling immigration (even longer, if you don't consider the border to be "strictly enfroced" until Operation Wetback in the 1950s). America has been strongest when it didn't care where you came from unless you gave it a reason to care.

Who is actually benefitting from a highly-militarized and exclusive southern border?