Grop wrote:(And this is also why it sounds funny when Americans claim they will massively move to Canada if unhappy about whatever; I suspect Canada wouldn't welcome them, and while it's easy to go somewhere as a tourist, it is much harder to get a job and a home as a foreigner).
Canada definitely does not welcome them. I knew a chap that tried it, and he moved up for a month, then had to move back. He's still not a fan of Trump, of course, but he ain't becoming Canadian. Though props to him for at least trying to back up his threat. Lotta people say it and never follow through.
idonno wrote:I agree with Kav that the harshness is what that specific law calls for and was probably intentional but it certainly seems to me like this violates cruel and unusual punishment and possibly equal protection under the law. Also, it probably gets around it on some stupid contrived legal technicality like civil forfeiture but it certainly violates the spirit of double jeopardy. If a law violates the constitution, it doesn't matter what was intended by it because the law itself is invalid.
I'd take a similar interpretation. Sure, the law may be harsh, but all laws are subordinate to the constitution. Can't go beyond the cruel and unusual punishment barrier. And of course, there's the right to a speedy trial, which ought to put some limitations on detainments without trial. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe most of those protections are traditionally granted to the broader class of US Persons, not merely citizens.
idonno wrote:My point has nothing to do with the rates of change. You can't count the amount of people currently here to measure the impact of reducing/removing border controls. Those people are here in both scenarios.
With regards to illegal immigrants already here, enforcement actions can remove them. Now, yeah, building a wall won't do shit to affect that population, but if we look at immigration more comprehensively, those people are definitely affected, and "they all stay here" is not guaranteed to be a shared perspective for everyone.
idonno wrote:I'm talking about the people caught crossing the border. You think people stop trying to cross the border after getting caught once? It seems highly unlikely that a lot of the deportations aren't repeats that would only immigrate once if allowed and thus are being double counted.
It's also likely that people don't attempt crossing for fear of being caught. These are rough estimates. A few double crossing people isn't a huge problem for the estimates.
idonno wrote: Private property owners can generally do whatever the hell they want with their property as long as it isn't harming others without any justification. Governments need to be held accountable and required to justify what they do. The two are completely different.
Whoever lives on that property, if it is not a sole owner, probably needs to justify themselves to some degree. If you have six roommates in a house, you can't very well decide to turn a bedroom into a garage without bringing it up with the other roommates, particularly any who live in that bedroom. Yeah, the owners ought not need to justify themselves to third parties who do not live on the property, but they need to work things out among themselves.
The same is true for members of a country. It shouldn't matter how the citizens of another country want us to vote(insert obligatory russian joke), but we've got to work things out among those who are here. The government is merely how we do that at present. It's not so very different in terms of moral responsibility, though scale introduces certain problems.