frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


          
+ NEW DEBATE

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Breaking the Anti-Immigrant Fever - Are you against the raids?

agsragsr 343 PointsPremium Member
NY Times published editorial crticizing Trump's anti immigration raids, providing colorfull examples of unfair treatments of those deported.  It is highly contentious, and takes a one sided position against the raids of illegal immigrants, anti-immigration policies, and Trump in general.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Breaking+the+Anti-Immigrant+Fever&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us
  1. Are you against Trump raids and his anti-immigration approach14 votes
    1. I am against Trump approach on the immigration raids
      50.00%
    2. I support Trump approach
      50.00%

Comments

  • agsragsr 343 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    There is no easy way to deal with the issue of deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records, and clearly there will be isolated casualties around the edges with examples you cherry picked.  What about bulk of the examples the ecitorial excluded where dangerous criminals were deported because of these raids? If these raids picked up just one criminal that will save just one American life, just one American woman from being raped, just one injury due to a terrorist attack..would you still not do it?
    According to poll on DebateIsland.com 85% agree with Trump immigration policies and raids, and 62% believe it's just a start.  

    The editorial is not taking into consideration that these people are here illegally, and we need decisive action to deal with this growing problem.  Starting with those that have a criminal record is a logical approach.
    I also don't appreciate how the editorial clouds the argument implying that Trump's policies are against immigrants.  They are not.  This country is built on immigrants, and plenty valuable members of our society migrated legally to now make a big difference in what shaped America today.  Trump and his supporters think that's great, but lets not bundle that with illegal immigration issue, especially as it relates to criminals.
    so complicated issue, and a one sided editorial in NY Times is not helpful.
  • inc4tinc4t 104 Points
    I think we need to be really carefully with the raids.  If we leave it up to the agents to determine what "criminal connection" is, we will instill terror in millions of people and create a state of constant fear.  Just like Trump suggests extreme vetting for immigration, there should be a form of fair vetting for deportations too.  What if these folks highlighted in the editorial have small kids or families and have rooted here for many years?  Isn't it fair to consider that we are not deal,ing with cattle?
  • I understand your point inc4t, but ultimately it is very difficult to do the right thing without have some fallout for 0.001% of margin of error.  These people are here illegally- so a small margin of error is acceptable. The issue needs to be resolved - Trump is taking decisive action to do that.  The editorial in NYT is biased.  That's why Trump is frustrated with the media.
  • Trump should be deporting illegal immigrants.
  • MattInFlaMattInFla 2 Points
    The article presented in the opening post exhibits an interesting phenomenon I have been noticing in the media lately.  The article conflates unlawful immigration with lawful immigration, in an attempt to portray actions against those who enter the country unlawfully as actions against all immigrants.

    The problem is that the previous administration decided to stop enforcing the law.  This does not grant those whose unlawful presence was being ignored any special legal status now that the new administration is enforcing the law.  In one case frequently presented as a representative of the problem, a woman who was convicted of a felony in 2009 and who was subsequently the subject of a deportation order from a court in 2013 was finally deported back to Mexico.

    People are trying to blame her deportation on the new administration, but in point of fact the blame lies with the prior administration that refused to act on the order of the court.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 176 Points

    @inc4t When a guy steals a car or robs a bank and is sent to jail, no one worries about whether or not he has a family.  He made a bad choice.  He broke the law.  He got caught. 

    What's the difference when an alien illegally crosses the border and gets deported?  He made a bad choice.  He broke the law.  He got caught.  Breaking the law has its consequences. 

  • blvd_lancerblvd_lancer 2 Points
    I personally approve and disapprove of the raids. 
    First, troops should not be rounding up illegal immigrants. Instead,they should be doing stuff which is much more important. I believe that police should be doing this.
    Next, this should be kept out of the media and people's eyes. We should not be seeing this happening, but instead possibly regular updates.
  • inc4tinc4t 104 Points
    I think there is a difference of robbing a bank and crossing over illegally.  Both are technically crimes, but it's like giving someone a life sentence for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his kids.  

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 176 Points
    @inc4t Would it be OK for someone to rob a bank to feed his kids?
  • inc4tinc4t 104 Points
    @CYDdharta , rob a bank - no.  A minor crime, like steal a loaf of bread from a counter - also no,  but I wouldn't send them to an electric chair for that.  I just want to make sure that punishment fits the crime.

  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 176 Points
    @inc4t I think we all want that.  Deporting people is the proper punishment for people who broke our immigration laws.  If they have family here, we should allow them all to be deported together.
  • inc4tinc4t 104 Points
     @CYDdharta ;
    So to be clear, will you argue that a mexican family that has illegally entered this country 20 years ago, has 3 kids who go to school, no criminal records, and no family left in mexico - gets all deported back now?
    if that is millions of hundreds of thousands (or even tens of thousands of people) - what would they even do there and is that humane?
    would you argue that we give them no notice if they are accused of having criminal record (even if they really don't)?
    in my opinion, I am supportive of deportations, but I feel we need to think of some special program or process for cases like this.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 176 Points

    @inc4t I wouldn't have a problem with it.  I don't believe its humane for them to live in the shadows in the US where they are no better off than slaves. 

    If they are here illegally, they are criminals.  They made a bad decision.  They broke the law.  They got caught.  They should face the consequences of their actions.  I don't see it any different than a bank robber or a carjacker.  The only difference is in how we prioritize the crimes.  Solving violent crimes should be our highest priority.  Deporting criminal aliens should be a priority.  Deporting illegals who are guilty of no other crime should be a low priority.  When, and indeed if, we ever stem the flow of illegals coming from our southern border, only then can we consider a different approach.

    The real problem is that Hispanics are not assimilating, they are creating a borderland (like the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Balkans) in our southern states. Borderlands are never good things. Right now, people of Mexican origin make up 40% or more of the population in about ¼ of the territory Mexico lost in the Mexican-American War. If this is allowed to continue, Mexican-backed candidates will make up an increasingly powerful political bloc in the south-western states. These politicians will have divided loyalties between the US, whose interests they are supposed to represent, and Mexico, who helped bring them to power. At the rate things are going, in 50 to 100 years, California, Arazona, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas… will be more Mexican than America.

  • inc4tinc4t 104 Points
    @CYDdharta , you are making 3 points
    1) severity of their crime.  Lets agree to disagree, I still maintain that it is less than robbing a Bank. Also while it is true they live innthe shadows in US, as "slaves" is an exaggeration.  It is much better for them here rather than sending them back.
    2) prioritization - agreed completely 
    3) hispanics not assimilating - agreed.

    good debate.
  • agsragsr 343 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    @inc4t and @CYDdharta , great discussion.  The topic of this particular debate is if we agree with Trump's raids.  They are focused on those with criminal record. To me that is an unconditional "agreed".
    the question you are debating now, what if they don't a record, do we agree to eventually prioritize deporting all illegal immigrants, and what should be the vetting process to ensure it is fair. 
    I agree with @CYDdharta that at some point once many other issues are solved around the inflow, we really need to tackle the issue. Given the scale, we need to be very thoughtful how it gets implemented, but it should be a deliberate program.
  • agsragsr 343 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    Another media propaganda article at the guardian, how illegal mexicans live in fear of being deported. That is creating a really big social issue, but that doesnt make it okay.  I still support the raids, especially prioritized ones  based on those with criminal records.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/05/deportation-fear-mexicans-los-angeles#comment-94344878
  • I support the Trump approach, but I believe that this should be done in a much more private manner.
  • WhyTrumpWhyTrump 125 PointsPremium Member
    Premium Member
    We cannot treat people like animals and just kick them out and their familiies without a formal balanced process.  Many of them have small children, who are innocent and did nothing wrong to deserve it. If Trump wants to have extreme vetting on accepting incoming immigrants, wouldnt it be fair to have a more robust deporting process as well? It is way too risky to just reply on judgement of one officer to deport someone from the country.  
  • yemenissueyemenissue 2 Points
    I support his method.
  • VaulkVaulk 177 Points
    @inc4t ; The issue with your example of a family living in the U.S. illegally for 20 years is this: Is there ANY other crime for which you can expect special treatment simply because you avoided capture for 20 years?  The answer is simply "No".  If we started letting people off easy simply because they didn't get caught for 20 years then we'd have a court system of hundreds of thousands every year pleading for "Special consideration" because they were lucky enough to avoid justice for X number of years. 

    The other issue with giving these people special consideration for having families here in the U.S. is: What kind of message does that send to the law abiding immigrants who are STILL working to achieve citizenship?  There are hundreds of thousands of would-be immigrants that are working hard to get through the sea of red tape involving citizenship in the U.S. and we're going to tell these lawful people that we're going to give special deals and shortcuts to the ones that skipped the line and went the illegal route?  Just what exactly does that say about our Country?  That we're a country of swindlers and we give special consideration to those who break the law?  Not my Country...not in my lifetime...not on my watch.  Boohoo about all the people that made the conscious decision to break our laws, disregard our border, who came here illegally and then decided to have Children on the CHANCE that they might not get caught.  I have NO sympathy for them, especially not when there are HUNDREDS of thousands of future Americans STILL in line, respecting our borders, filling out the paperwork and putting in for the long-haul to get LEGITIMATE citizenship.
  • inc4tinc4t 104 Points
    @Vaulk, I agree with your points.
    my only concern is how to prioritize the 11 million people to be deported and what will be the exception process.
  • VaulkVaulk 177 Points
    Creating an exception process for criminals is wrong in any way...there should be no special treatment for anyone who breaks the law...period.  Whenever considering how to handle a problem, second and third order effects should always be taken into consideration and in this case creating a special rule for those who have evaded capture for their crime of breaching our border would create a new problem: People would start flooding past the gates illegally and would skip the line entirely on the chance that they wouldn't get caught and would be given special consideration.  We'd be opening ourselves up to "You just have to cross illegally, have children and establish a family for X years in order to get citizenship".  The bad outweighs the good by a huge margin on this one. 

    If you're not a criminal...good, then be deported and apply for citizenship like you should have.  If you have a long established Family here in the U.S., good...then be deported and you can even take your Family with you, if you can't or won't take your family with you then you should've taken their lives into consideration before you broke the law.  No one is responsible for the lives of Family members affected by deportation except those who are having to be deported...it is the fault of the person committing the crime, they should not have put their Family into that position, the Government is not responsible for undoing 10, 20, 30 years of bad decisions made by the illegal immigrant.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch