[refurb]

That logic doesn't hold up.

Legal immigration - as is today - is about 1% of the US population. That's pretty standard, and would result in an slowly increasing population.

But regardless, saying "we need immigrants" then jumping to "illegal or not" is not a logical argument. We absolutely can have a system that prevent illegal immigration, while carefully screening legal immigrants. Heck, every country in the world does this except the US.

[halfmatthalfcat]

Can, if we had a functioning Congress that actually passed material laws. We’ve been trying to pass immigration reform for the last couple of decades.

[refurb]

Changing laws is irrelevant if the executive chooses to ignore them.

It would be better to actually enforce the immigration laws we have right now, and see where we land. Then make changes from there.

[filoeleven]

And we would have had bipartisan steps toward it before the last presidential election, if Trump hadn't told Republicans to tank it at the last minute because it hurt his biggest talking point for reelection.

[newfriend]

Republicans did not support that bill. A single Republican Senator negotiated it in secret. You guys mischaracterize this bill as some amazing thing that everyone was excited to pass until Trump told them not to. That isn't reality.

You can hear it from the horse's mouth here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf4EzoWR944

[paulryanrogers]

The US values individual freedom, has porous borders, a diverse population, and a large land mass. Citizens would have to put up with some pretty draconian living conditions to ensure zero illegal migration.

Even Reagan granted mass amnesty in the face of such costs.

We can disagree on where the threshold of unacceptable intrusion into our lives should be. But significant change probably requires replacing the Fourth Amendment. Or--as is happening now--pretending the 4A doesn't exist and hope whoever is in power next won't prosecute them.

[refurb]

> Citizens would have to put up with some pretty draconian living conditions to ensure zero illegal migration.

I don’t agree. It’s a matter of incentives. If you know entering the US illegally means you stand a high chance of being deported, have almost no ability to be employed and no access to any social services, the problem mostly solves itself.

Lots of other countries ask why the US has problems other countries have already solved and immigration is a great example of it. It’s a solved problem, our leaders intentionally don’t want it fixed.

> Even Reagan granted mass amnesty in the face of such costs.

The amnesty was an agreement that substantial legislation would be passed later than would stop illegal immigration. That’s why Reagan agreed to it. But the changes never happened.

> But significant change probably requires replacing the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment can stay as is. Just stop people from staying illegally in the country and the 4th amendment becomes a non-issue.

[paulryanrogers]

So you're comfortable with the current situation for citizens?

I.e. one must carry paperwork at all times, risk getting detained and beaten for going out in public (especially if not white or speaking non-English), masked men may enter your property or home with no identification and take whomever they like, no accountability for ICE abuses/mistakes, etc.

What about migrants who are legal? Or tourists who just want to visit on a visa?

Does the US really want a country with no migration nor tourism?

You also seem to think this problem is solved elsewhere, but Europe continues to struggle with surges of migration from conflict zones and poorer countries.

[refurb]

None of those things you stated are accurate.

Citizens do not need to carry papers.

Federal law enforcement (what you call “masked men”) cannot enter your property without a search warrant, nor take whoever they want without a I-200 or I-205 warrant for violating immigration law.

All migrants who are legal MUST carry proof of legal status as it’s the law - 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e). That includes tourists.

It’s not really that hard. Australia has strict enforcement of immigration laws. As does Japan. It’s never perfect but the practically zero enforcement for the past few decades in the US is a horrible situation that only encourages things like human trafficking and labor abuses.

Is that really what we want the US known for? A country where if you can smuggle yourself into at the risk of physical and sexual violence by cartels you might be able to get ahead assuming you can survive the abuse and exploitation of your labor? Immigration laws protect immigrants as much as they protect citizens.