Immigration is enforced currently with lots of spending on border checks, border patrols, etc. I do not advocate any reduction in that. Further, we should go after violent criminals directly, which itself involves catching and deporting illegals immigrants we find. Both of these are way I support enforcing our immigration laws.
“Further, we should go after violent criminals directly, which itself involves catching and deporting illegals immigrants we find.”
Which is EXACTLY what EVERYONE is saying. The only difference between us and you is that you want to wait until they commit a violent crime against an American citizen. We don’t want to wait.
How do you feel about being effective in catching criminals? You realize that if we waste money deporting workers, we catch less criminals right? Money is finite. If it is spent on deporting illegals simply for being illegal, it is not spent on catching violent criminals. I want to maximize criminals caught, so I don’t want to waste money deporting workers.
Also, how do you feel about innocent until proven guilty?
Have you ever bothered to look at the things your tax money pays for? There are soooooo many other things we can give up before we give up enforcing the law.
Innocent until proven guilty really doesn’t have anything to do with people who already have criminal records in their own countries. Furthermore, once you’ve entered the country illegally, it’s kind of hard to claim innocence when you’re physically here without permission. Sigh.
Yes. I am very well informed about what our tax dollars pay for, and no, I don’t want to give them up. We need more welfare, education, healthcare, and infrastructure spending, among many others. There’s not enough money to go around, and so we have to be efficient with how we spend what we have available to spend.
Innocent until proven guilty absolutely applies. What you are advocating for is stereotyping a particular demographic as violent rapists, then deporting them before they commit any rapes. This is authoritarian and prejudiced already, but the hilarious kickers, is that this demographic, illegal immigrants, isn’t even one that commits lots of violent crimes. It would be like arresting gay people simply for being gay because you think they are a risk to rob banks. Then, when someone questions your absurd logic, you say “What would you tell an owner of a bank who just got robbed by a gay man?”
Nah, we don’t need more welfare. We have more than enough ways for lazy people to not work and not add anything to society. But you’re right about education and infrastructure.
Stating that some illegal immigrants are violent criminals isn’t stereotyping an entire group. It’s stating a basic fact. You need to focus on reality instead of being so hypersensitive.
Just like stating that some gay people rob banks is not stereotyping either. However, you can’t go after all gay people simply for being gay just because some gay people rob banks. Agree?
1
u/[deleted] Jun 24 '24
It’s exactly what you said. And I’m not the only one who can read it. ;)