• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

U.S. Border and Immigration

Then why deport them? They've violated your laws - punish them as you would anyone who does so. Deportation is no punishment.

The deportation comes after the punishment, not in place of the punishment. And the reason to deport isn't as a punishment. We don't want non-citizen criminals in the US. We deport them so we don't have to deal with them in the future, and risk having them re-offend.
 
Deportation is not that. If there is no punishment apart from being taken cost-free to the border and pushed over into the country next door, that's actually a case of "don't care if it is done", not "don't want done". Big difference. As I have repeated: deportation is not really a punishment.
Okay, well here's at least a part of your misunderstanding and errant assumptions. Deportation is not just "drop them off at the border and wave goodbye". The US coordinated with agencies in the person's country of origin. If there's no crime involved other than being here illegally, it's largely just the customs branch of that country. If there is a crime involved, then depending on what kind of crime and how high-profile it is, it can involve anything from local law enforcement at the destination point up to coordination with ambassadors, state departments (or their equivalents), and other government officials.

I'll go back to the misbehaving child analogy, in hope that this might help illustrate this. If little Alex is just being a brat, but no real harm done, then it's reasonable that they might just get dropped off at their own house and handed back to the care of their parents. If little Alex bit your kid's finger and caused harm, then you'd likely drop them off and tell Alex's parents about the incident, and leave it to them to punish Alex; this might also include Alex no longer being allowed to visit your house in the future. If little Alex went on a rampage and broke your television, damaged your car, beat the crap out of your kid Pat, and attacked you with a kitchen knife... you might involved the police first, press charges against them, and have the police send Alex back to their parents along with a laundry list of charges and a bill for all of the damages.

So depending on what Alex has done, the 'deportation' could range from simply returning them to their parent's care all the way up to criminal and civil charges and an incident that other families in the vicinity will be aware of - which will affect whether Alex gets to play with ANY kids, and likely impact what other adults think of Alex's parents too.

Really, there's no loss to most deportees from the USA in never being allowed back in again. There's at least dozens of other countries in the world to live in with similar if not better lifestyles available.
So why aren't they going to those other countries in the first place?

It's a matter of misconceptions. Some Americans think that the worst possible thing that could happen to someone is to be tossed out of the almighty and wonderful USA, for whatever reason. In reality, most deportees don't care very much at all. With that in mind, it does free up the possibilities for any immigrants who have a mind to commit serious crimes - they know they can get away with it and if they play their cards right, get a free ride out of Dodge from the sheriff. Fortunately, very very few actually do commit crimes.
This is your own misconception, several of them in fact.

Most Americans don't think deportation is the worst possible thing, we just think that a non-citizen doesn't have an immediate right to stay in the US and be supported by *our* tax dollars; it's their country's responsibility to deal with their bad behavior, we shouldn't have to foot the bill if we don't have to.

A whole lot of deportees *do* care a whole lot about being sent back to the countries that they intentionally left in the first place. Some might not - a travel visa overstay deportation might not give a crap when they get sent back to Singapore, for instance. But if someone screws up their work visa and gets deported, they're out of a job, off the list for potential immigration, and often end up with damage to their reputations in their home country. Some countries will impose their own punishments on their citizens who get deported for committing crimes. A few years back, China was intituting some serious consequences for citizens who were merely ******** while visiting the US, let alone if they messed up bad enough to get involuntarily shipped back and turned over the the Chinese authorities.

As for your "free ride" assumption... I'll direct you back to my first section which covers the fact that this isn't what happens.

You're working from a whole lot of very, very bad assumptions. I don't know if you've been given misinformation somewhere, or if you're just basing this on what you imagine happens. Either way, your notions are simply wrong.
 
The deportation comes after the punishment, not in place of the punishment. And the reason to deport isn't as a punishment. We don't want non-citizen criminals in the US. We deport them so we don't have to deal with them in the future, and risk having them re-offend.

The deportation usually comes after the punishment. Depending on how close an ally the country of origin is, the type of judicial proceedings and sentencing that country uses, the magnitude and impact of the crime, and our relationship with that country's law enforcement... we might in some instances decide to coordinate with the other country and let the other country handle the criminal proceedings.

But that's not a normal outcome, I believe that sort of thing only happens when there's some matter of diplomatic sensitivity in play. I can't really provide more info - I know it can happen, but I don't know enough of the specifics to be any more useful than this.
 
This is a very weird tactic you've got going on. None of this is unusual, none of this is unique to the US. Australia has substantially the same rules.

Why are you so determine that the US specifically is somehow obligated to use our citizen's tax funds to support the trial and incarceration costs of people who are here illegally? Why are you so dead-set on having the US specifically be required to retain foreign people who are not here legally rather than returning them to their country of origin?

I'm not, particularly. You do you. This argument is in response to the loud braying from certain sections of the USA that the FIRST thing to do with illegals who commit crimes is to deport the SOBs back to where they came from.
 
This is a very weird tactic you've got going on. None of this is unusual, none of this is unique to the US. Australia has substantially the same rules.

Why are you so determine that the US specifically is somehow obligated to use our citizen's tax funds to support the trial and incarceration costs of people who are here illegally? Why are you so dead-set on having the US specifically be required to retain foreign people who are not here legally rather than returning them to their country of origin?

Yep, we are equally pathetic.

You seem to have gone a bit overboard. I am discussing illegals who commit serious crimes, not illegals generally.
 
Because they are US citizens, we as a country are responsible for them.

This seems really obvious to me, but maybe you're not getting the core concept here. We deport people to the countries that these people are legal citizens of. We can't force another country to allow a US citizen into their country, and it seems nuts to expect that other countries would ever consent to allow the US to dump *our* criminals on them.

FFS, we (my family and friends) got denied entry to CA because one person in our car had a misdemeanor assault on their record from 25 years ago! Why on earth do you think it even remotely reasonable to send US citizens with criminal records to another country? Why on earth do you think they would ACCEPT them in?

Because the person you are deporting committed the crime in YOUR country. Your house, your rules, your punishment. Different countries have different laws.

I gave the example of Indonesia jailing Australians for decades for selling marijuana. In Australia that's a low grade offence, hardly jailable. Indonesia does not deport Australian criminals, or any other nationalities.

Also, since when did CA have border controls with other US states? Unless you mean entry from Mexico?
 
Are you somehow laboring under the assumption that the US State Department would *not* tell your government that you assassinated a US Politician? Are you assuming that YOUR COUNTRY would not punish you for causing an international incident?

The opinion here of people like Abbott is so low that I might get a ticker tape parade. ;)

That aside, if you are deporting a criminal, what do YOU care what other countries think? Why so sensitive all of a sudden? If they said no, would you say sorry and take them back?
 
Okay, well here's at least a part of your misunderstanding and errant assumptions. Deportation is not just "drop them off at the border and wave goodbye". The US coordinated with agencies in the person's country of origin. If there's no crime involved other than being here illegally, it's largely just the customs branch of that country. If there is a crime involved, then depending on what kind of crime and how high-profile it is, it can involve anything from local law enforcement at the destination point up to coordination with ambassadors, state departments (or their equivalents), and other government officials.

I'll go back to the misbehaving child analogy, in hope that this might help illustrate this. If little Alex is just being a brat, but no real harm done, then it's reasonable that they might just get dropped off at their own house and handed back to the care of their parents. If little Alex bit your kid's finger and caused harm, then you'd likely drop them off and tell Alex's parents about the incident, and leave it to them to punish Alex; this might also include Alex no longer being allowed to visit your house in the future. If little Alex went on a rampage and broke your television, damaged your car, beat the crap out of your kid Pat, and attacked you with a kitchen knife... you might involved the police first, press charges against them, and have the police send Alex back to their parents along with a laundry list of charges and a bill for all of the damages.

So depending on what Alex has done, the 'deportation' could range from simply returning them to their parent's care all the way up to criminal and civil charges and an incident that other families in the vicinity will be aware of - which will affect whether Alex gets to play with ANY kids, and likely impact what other adults think of Alex's parents too.


So why aren't they going to those other countries in the first place?


This is your own misconception, several of them in fact.

Most Americans don't think deportation is the worst possible thing, we just think that a non-citizen doesn't have an immediate right to stay in the US and be supported by *our* tax dollars; it's their country's responsibility to deal with their bad behavior, we shouldn't have to foot the bill if we don't have to.

A whole lot of deportees *do* care a whole lot about being sent back to the countries that they intentionally left in the first place. Some might not - a travel visa overstay deportation might not give a crap when they get sent back to Singapore, for instance. But if someone screws up their work visa and gets deported, they're out of a job, off the list for potential immigration, and often end up with damage to their reputations in their home country. Some countries will impose their own punishments on their citizens who get deported for committing crimes. A few years back, China was intituting some serious consequences for citizens who were merely ******** while visiting the US, let alone if they messed up bad enough to get involuntarily shipped back and turned over the the Chinese authorities.

As for your "free ride" assumption... I'll direct you back to my first section which covers the fact that this isn't what happens.

You're working from a whole lot of very, very bad assumptions. I don't know if you've been given misinformation somewhere, or if you're just basing this on what you imagine happens. Either way, your notions are simply wrong.

I have been simplifying for discussion sake. Yes, I am well aware of the complexities involved in deportation. But the sum effect is still the same. The illegal criminal is removed at no personal cost to them. It's a totally Trump-like manoeuvre: the criminal gets away scot free, someone else pays to let him go.

As for the tax cost, as explained previously, a couple dozen extra inmates per year among millions in jail already is a tiny drop in the ocean. There will be at least that many other new inmates in just one day alone.
 
FFS, we (my family and friends) got denied entry to CA because one person in our car had a misdemeanor assault on their record from 25 years ago! Why on earth do you think it even remotely reasonable to send US citizens with criminal records to another country? Why on earth do you think they would ACCEPT them in?

If true California committed a violation of you and your families civil rights. US states cannot prohibit people from interstate travel.

ETA: or by entry to CA did you really mean entry into the USA via a crossing within CA and only a non citizen was denied entry?
 
Last edited:
I'm not, particularly. You do you. This argument is in response to the loud braying from certain sections of the USA that the FIRST thing to do with illegals who commit crimes is to deport the SOBs back to where they came from.

I still don't understand why that's a problem for you. They should be deported on the basis of them being here illegally to begin with. If they commit crimes, they should just be deported faster.

The fact that the US has been willing to turn a blind eye out of general kindness for quite some time doesn't change the fact that they are still here illegally.

Your entire approach is doubly baffling to me because your country does the exact same thing.
 
Because the person you are deporting committed the crime in YOUR country. Your house, your rules, your punishment. Different countries have different laws.

I gave the example of Indonesia jailing Australians for decades for selling marijuana. In Australia that's a low grade offence, hardly jailable. Indonesia does not deport Australian criminals, or any other nationalities.

Also, since when did CA have border controls with other US states? Unless you mean entry from Mexico?

CA is Canada, which I would think was obvious given that we were talking about COUNTRIES.
 
If true California committed a violation of you and your families civil rights. US states cannot prohibit people from interstate travel.

ETA: or by entry to CA did you really mean entry into the USA via a crossing within CA and only a non citizen was denied entry?

CANADA. We were trying to go to CANADA, and were denied entry.

Lol, this is one of those cases where the egocentrism of the average american seems to be contagious and has affected at least one australian as well.

US, AU, NZ, UK, CA, FR, MX... these are pretty common abbreviations for countries.
 
Why not? Some US criminals you could do without. You mentioned the cost of incarceration. Save that money and toss out the trash.

Because...
We can't force another country to allow a US citizen into their country, and it seems nuts to expect that other countries would ever consent to allow the US to dump *our* criminals on them.
 
CANADA. We were trying to go to CANADA, and were denied entry.

Lol, this is one of those cases where the egocentrism of the average american seems to be contagious and has affected at least one australian as well.

US, AU, NZ, UK, CA, FR, MX... these are pretty common abbreviations for countries.

Duly noted. Also, the USA denies tourist and work visa's for things like that too. It escapes me what your point was. For minor offenses we generally just kick people out and don't let them come back. For felonies we prosecute. Thats pretty common among other developed nations.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...-visa-green-card-applicants-inadmissible.html
 
I still don't understand why that's a problem for you. They should be deported on the basis of them being here illegally to begin with. If they commit crimes, they should just be deported faster.

The fact that the US has been willing to turn a blind eye out of general kindness for quite some time doesn't change the fact that they are still here illegally.

Your entire approach is doubly baffling to me because your country does the exact same thing.

I'm not talking about Australia. Nor non criminal illegals in the USA.

Perhaps if you DID jail all illegals regardless, you might have less of a border problem. ;)
 
Emily's Cat said:
Why not? Some US criminals you could do without. You mentioned the cost of incarceration. Save that money and toss out the trash.

Because...
We can't force another country to allow a US citizen into their country, and it seems nuts to expect that other countries would ever consent to allow the US to dump *our* criminals on them.
And yet the USA has been trying for years to drag IN a non- US citizen in order to prosecute and jail him for breaking US laws while he was outside the USA. That's importing a foreign criminal. How privileged is that to have to go to a US jail!

Also, if you pay them enough, some countries would be happy to take your serious criminals. Guantanamo ring a bell?
 
Another illegal alien released by local officials after ICE issued a detainer.

He had been arrested for sexually assaulting a minor under the age of 13.

Who cares about child rape, we need more future Democrat voters.

Link
 
Duly noted. Also, the USA denies tourist and work visa's for things like that too. It escapes me what your point was. For minor offenses we generally just kick people out and don't let them come back. For felonies we prosecute. Thats pretty common among other developed nations.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclop...-visa-green-card-applicants-inadmissible.html

My point was pretty much in line with what you said - we deny people entry for crimes committed in their home country; we kick them out of our country for minor crimes committed here (sometimes after prosecution and fines); we prosecute and sometimes sentence with jail time then kick them out for major crimes. The US does this... and so does every other developed country. None of this is unusual or unacceptable, so Norman Alexander's argument is... weird at best.
 

Back
Top Bottom