Journal Bill Dog's Journal: Operation Wetback II 7
At lunch time MSNBC was questioning Trump's idea to deport illegal immigrants. The questions raised that I'm able to recall are:
1) How can it be done humanely?
2) How can they all be found?
3) What about the separation of families?
What popped into my head was: Q: How is it done for any other lawbreakers?
A: We apprehend them, and then we transport them.
You put them in handcuffs, to keep them from trying to elude authorities once captured. If they spit or bite, you put a mask on them. If they kick, you hogtie them. Going back for a sec, if they resist cuffing, you taze or pepperspray them. We already know how to do this humanely.
Put them in a vehicle, tell them to watch their heads as they get in, make sure their feet are in before closing the door (i.e. what seems to be perfectly routine policy, for law enforcement agencies from all over the country, from watching the show "Cops"), and then drive them to where they're told to take them.
Imagine a crew of people who'd pulled off some bank robberies. We'd do the obvious; pick them up at home, at work, at the grocery store, or whereever we had the element of surprise/had more likelihood of successfully taking them into custody without them being more prepared to escalate it into more violence.
On rounding every last one up, for lawbreakers in general, we can't find them all now. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Or that we should legalize bank robbery.
And we already separate lawbreakers from their families. If we avoided doing anything at all that had any side effects or downsides whatsoever, we wouldn't do anything.
It seems like on a practical level we'd probably want to try to get a couple of things done first:
I) Settle the "anchor baby" thing, Constitutionally. The kids should be considered just as illegal as their parents, and better to deport the family as an intact unit, than the kids going to wherever the government puts them when there's no parent left in the home.
II) Build the wall. Whether that be a physical wall, or a virtual wall implemented via technology, or sections of both. But it makes less sense to begin seriously bailing water out of the boat before you've plugged its holes.
As to where to transport them to, what are we doing with Syrian refugees? Apparently we've picked out 190 cities in this country where they'll be dropped off at. So pick 190 cities in Latin America.
And give the deportees their choice, as presumably many would want to be placed at or near where they came from or where extended family is located. We don't owe them that, but we're a generous people, we just don't want to be taken advantage of anymore. Give them a few bottles of water, some military rations, and some pesos in their pockets.
And possibly, for some, literature on how to apply for legal citizenship (and some idea of how long the wait might take). But legal immigration is a topic unto itself. Such as the purpose(s) of it. And how much truth there is behind "jobs Americans won't do".
When the laws suck, fuck 'em. (Score:1)
Don't expect any respect, especially when the laws don't apply to everybody. Troll on, my friend.
A few problems with that ... (Score:2)
And how are anchor babies constitutionally supposed to be deprived of their rights as citizens, without rewriting the constitution (good luck with that)? Or you can open up the constitution, in which case you had better be ready for other modifications (like the ERA), and there's also the risk of losing the right to carry guns ... even the NRA would oppose re-opening the constitution.
Also, if you're tazing your average citizen for victimless or non-violent crimes, and think this is normal, you're doing it
Re: (Score:1)
Para1: That, as you must know, is begging the question, from the other side's POV; e.g. http://www.cairco.org/issues/a... [cairco.org]
And yes, I agree, I would definitely not want to see another Constitutional Convention; I fully admit that the U.S. Constitution ill-represents the will of the American people today. And therefore there really should be one, even though my POV would lose.
P2: My support for tazing is completely independent of the nature of the crime. It's only if there's resisting arrest, and sufficien
Re: (Score:2)
As you can see here Brazil and Mexico [wikipedia.org] are industrialized nations (think of how many car assembly and manufacturing jobs have been sent to Mexico, or look at Brazil's aircraft industry).
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe Mayhicko is de facto non- birthright citizenship. Either way, it certainly doesn't matter to me. It's strange they would use that -- a Left-wing tactic -- as "support" for a Right-wing position. When Rightism certainly isn't about relativism, or being overly concerned about others. I know I don't look to my neighbors to decide how my life should be, so why would I think America should take cues from other countries. Especially arbitrary categorizations of them; why on earth would I think that nat
Re: (Score:2)
Logistics (Score:2)
I'll start with the easy one: anchor babies. You'll need to amend the Constitution to fix this. Get back to me when that is done.
Second, we handle immigration violation like we handle other law breakers -- as you said. The amount of effort that goes in to pursuing, capturing, transporting and trying a lawbreaker is proportionate to their crime. This is why there are extradition hearings when a person gets arrested in one State for a warrant from another State. Frequently, depending on the cost and severity