Support NeoGAF

[Gentleman Jack]

Every post like this belies a fundamental lack of understanding of what is being argued. Once a lack of documentation has been established, innocence can no longer be proven. As in, they're guilty. All of this talk about public defenders has nothing to do with anything. Perhaps the appealate court comparisons have merit but the other arguments are non starters.

And what this entire thread is about is to give people facing deportation after establishing that they're undocumented a fighting chance in court. and allocating a very tiny amount of money, $5 million out of the nearly $9 billion la county allocates in spending every year, to ensure that those who need representation in our legal system get adequate representation.

The people who are knives out about 'fuck 'em they're illegals can't you tell by the name illegals?' are 1) not reading the article in the OP and 2) not arguing about anything in the OP.

 

[Night Angel]

Until they've pled or been found guilty of a crime, they are not criminals, period. The legal system doesn't suddenly stop applying because someone is brown and doesn't speak English.

Oh lord, now I'm a racist and think brown people don't fair legal treatment. That's enough for me, I guess.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

I'm not sure why people conflate a desire to enforce the country's immigration laws with a desire to... ignore other laws? Why would someone who is for upholding immigration statutes want to remove public defenders from the criminal justice system? How did that even come up?
Illegal immigrant isn't a race, and one doesn't have to be racist to desire less illegal immigration. Most countries on earth make efforts to prevent this. Hell, most have stricter enforcement than the US. Is every country racist against "illegals", who aren't a race in the first place?

 

[Night Angel]

Well you did. You said that immigrants who went though a process that others find broken, disorganised and politicized should not have to foot the bill because illegal immigrants who are here did not and will reap a benefit. Let me ask you then, do you think the current system is broken or not?

There are definite improvements that can be made to our immigration system.

How that's relevant to anything is beyond me, but there it is.

Unless you think we should just ignore laws because we don't like the system.

 

[slit]

There are definite improvements that can be made to our immigration system.

How that's relevant to anything is beyond me, but there it is.

What improvements?

Unless you think we should just ignore laws because we don't like the system.

Who is ignoring anything? This action is the opposite of ignoring.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Oh lord, now I'm a racist and think brown people don't fair legal treatment. That's enough for me, I guess.

Well adios again.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I'm not sure why people conflate a desire to enforce the country's immigration laws with a desire to... ignore other laws? Why would someone who is for upholding immigration statutes want to remove public defenders from the criminal justice system? How did that even come up?
Illegal immigrant isn't a race, and one doesn't have to be racist to desire less illegal immigration. Most countries on earth make efforts to prevent this. Hell, most have stricter enforcement than the US. Is every country racist against "illegals", who aren't a race in the first place?

Read Night Angel's posts.

 

[Night Angel]

What improvements?

They could reduce the amount of time it takes. They could reduce the financial burden on the folks who go through it. Shit, many of my friends have gone through it and it took years. It's ridiculous.

Still don't see where you're going with this.

Read Night Angel's posts.

I think you mean miss the point of my posts.

 

[PopeReal]

Lol at the meltdown.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Read Night Angel's posts.

I did. And I don't see where he mentioned that he wanted to throw away the current state of the criminal justice system. I saw Stump conflate the two and a bunch of other posters dog pile on and now some veiled accusations of racism. I don't see a hell of a lot of intellectually honest discourse though.

I guess it doesn't really matter as I'm not in California and don't really have a horse in this race. Bully for California if they want to keep their illegal population. I think that every illegal that's here who doesn't commit any other crimes and is otherwise a productive member of society is absolutely welcome. I also don't think that Trump is going to have much luck enforcing anywhere near the kind of deportations that he seems to desire.

 

[richardhawk]

I'm not sure why people conflate a desire to enforce the country's immigration laws with a desire to... ignore other laws? Why would someone who is for upholding immigration statutes want to remove public defenders from the criminal justice system? How did that even come up?
Illegal immigrant isn't a race, and one doesn't have to be racist to desire less illegal immigration. Most countries on earth make efforts to prevent this. Hell, most have stricter enforcement than the US. Is every country racist against "illegals", who aren't a race in the first place?

In the case of California "illegal immigrant" is thrown around primarily against Mexican (or people who are perceived to be Mexican). So saying "it's not a race issue" isn't very accurate. People that will benefit from this money are already paying taxes in some way.

 

[slit]

They could reduce the amount of time it takes. They could reduce the financial burden on the folks who go through it. Shit, many of my friends have gone through it and it took years. It's ridiculous.

Still don't see where you're going with this.

What you are saying then is that because your friends suffered now others should too because well.....I don't know. You admit the system is fucked up yet when the city tries to do something they are the wrong ones.

 

[Night Angel]

What you are saying then is that because they suffered now others should too because well.....I don't know. You admit the system is fucked up yet when the city tries to do something they are the wrong ones.

Every first world country has a process to become a citizen. They all place some form of burden on those who want to become citizens. Whether that is "suffering" or not is a matter of how much you like to hyperbolize.

Just because there are flaws in the system doesn't mean we should throw it out or ignore it.

 

[PeterLegend]

At my work place, a lot of people are fed up with illegal immigrants, that's why they voted for Trump.

And I do live in Southern California.

 

[EMT0]

Every first world country has a process to become a citizen. They all place some form of burden on those who want to become citizens. Whether that is "suffering" or not is a matter of how much you like to hyperbolize.

Just because there are flaws in the system doesn't mean we should throw it out or ignore it.

Then how about you tell us what your price is on legality for undocumented immigrants, instead of beating around the bush

 

[slit]

Every first world country has a process to become a citizen. They all place some form of burden on those who want to become citizens. Whether that is "suffering" or not is a matter of how much you like to hyperbolize.

Just because there are flaws in the system doesn't mean we should throw it out or ignore it.

They are not ignoring anything. Don't know where you are getting that from. They are doing something to help the same people you claim have gotten a raw deal in the past. Nobody is saying ignore the feds and run around naked. The city is saying they will help in a legal fight against laws which you yourself seem to think have many flaws.

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Then how about you tell us what your price is on legality for undocumented immigrants, instead of beating around the bush

I mean, this kind of statement is bullshit, too. Where does "price" even come into it? Why can't you have a discussion without this kind of hostile, bad-faith arguing? TBH such a post doesn't even deserve a response.

 

[darklin0]

At my work place, a lot of people are fed up with illegal immigrants, that's why they voted for Trump.

And I do live in Southern California.

SoCal is Texas Ligtht™.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

SoCal is Texas Ligtht™.

Some counties are. Orange, parts of Riverside. The Central Valley (exploitable labor).

I mean, this kind of statement is bullshit, too. Where does "price" even come into it? Why can't you have a discussion without this kind of hostile, bad-faith arguing? TBH such a post doesn't even deserve a response.

Technically, you are saying that the $5 million that the city puts in the fund is too much to keep families together, kids in school, and people just trying to better themselves.

Putting together a legal fund for deportation cases is not arguing for open borders. Only few extremists want open borders.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

I think you mean miss the point of my posts.

Spending taxpayer money to protect people who are breaking the law from enforcement of those laws is idiotic.

We do this currently. All the time. Public Defenders. Appellate courts. Parole Boards. Prison Hospitals. Drug rehabilitation clinics.

But you want to make an example out of dem illegals on your absurd claim that breaking the law makes you ineligible for any expenditure of public money. And your reasons for that are very poorly elaborated at best.

 

[kcp12304]

I'm not sure why people conflate a desire to enforce the country's immigration laws with a desire to... ignore other laws? Why would someone who is for upholding immigration statutes want to remove public defenders from the criminal justice system? How did that even come up?
Illegal immigrant isn't a race, and one doesn't have to be racist to desire less illegal immigration. Most countries on earth make efforts to prevent this. Hell, most have stricter enforcement than the US. Is every country racist against "illegals", who aren't a race in the first place?

http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/3337...nstruction-workers-of-being-illegals-in-video

A Trump supporter goes on a racist tirade against a group of construction workers (who are legal residents) and accuses them of being "illegals". What do you think they looked like?

There is a huge amount of xenophobia around this topic which is why it is not just valid but necessary to bring racism into it. Some may want to pretend like it doesn't exist but Immigration was a big topic this election season. It wasn't because a hell of a lot of people were so Spock-like about the legal matters. It wasn't just simply about enforcing immigration and border laws as if the issue were that black and white.

 

[Rayis]

What you are saying then is that because your friends suffered now others should too because well.....I don't know. You admit the system is fucked up yet when the city tries to do something they are the wrong ones.

And not only that, the people who come here illegally usually have little to no alternatives to come here legally, they don't come here illegally because they want to laugh in the face of the American justice system, they come here because there is no other way for them to do so, they're low-skilled workers with little to no education, people who America won't accept here.

Of course, people argue they broke the law so they should be deported and they're not necessarily wrong about that, it's just when you're familiar with undocumented people's struggles you start to see the suffering and hardships and the opposition starts looking incredibly cold and heartless.

but w/e, it's irrelevant to them, justice is blind, that's why I hate discussing illegal immigration , I can be objective about it but I hate being objective about this particular subject.

 

[EMT0]

I mean, this kind of statement is bullshit, too. Where does "price" even come into it? Why can't you have a discussion without this kind of hostile, bad-faith arguing? TBH such a post doesn't even deserve a response.

It's bad faith to respond to a post saying 'There's a process to be carried out' with 'What's your price for the process then?' Half the people in this thread clinging to illegal as their go-to word and arguing about how the law is the law refuse to even respond or acknowledge any of the posts I or others have made about how undocumented immigrants contribute or how any money coming from the city is likely sourced just as much from undocumented immigrants as anybody else. God forbid someone acknowledge the vitality of undocumented immigrants to the economy, society, or the fact that they don't in fact get anything back from what they put in aside from the bare minimum needed to not be claiming human rights abuses like denying an education to children.

And I'm the one arguing in bad faith? If anything, I should be the one arguing about how others are acting in bad faith by ignoring all of these points and clinging to the law as a convenient way to sidestep their maliciousness and amorality onto the 'other', of which I'm one.

 

[Nothing1016]

We do this currently. All the time. Public Defenders. Appellate courts. Parole Boards. Prison Hospitals. Drug rehabilitation clinics.

But you want to make an example out of dem illegals on your absurd claim that breaking the law makes you ineligible for any expenditure of public money. And your reasons for that are very poorly elaborated at best.

Yup. God forbid we show some compassion and empathy for our fellow man. Immigrants have helped our state tremendously and this is the least we can do. They are practically the backbone working force in the agriculture sector.

 

[wenis]

Thank god I left California. Spending taxpayer money to protect people who are breaking the law from enforcement of those laws is idiotic.

im glad you left california too

 

[Tagyhag]

Every first world country has a process to become a citizen. They all place some form of burden on those who want to become citizens. Whether that is "suffering" or not is a matter of how much you like to hyperbolize.

Just because there are flaws in the system doesn't mean we should throw it out or ignore it.

But you still haven't offered a solution, and I still don't know if you realize the impact of unchecked massive deportations would have in this country, especially in California.

 

[Trojita]

I hate to burst your damn bubble, but if only 3.1 million undocumented immigrants (my parents included) pay for Social Security, that's 3.1 million that are paying into a system that they can't claim anything from regardless. My parents pay taxes on that but at this rate, won't ever be able to access anything from their contribution. Many undocumented immigrants still pay federal, state, and local taxes.

When will the day come when people will stop spreading bullshit, twisted figures, and heresy about us. Undocumented immigrants pay taxes. Some may not pay federal taxes, but a large portion of them do. And they pay state and local taxes whether they want to or not, because sales and property taxes are damn near inescapable unless you also live like a hermit in the woods. And most of that tax money goes to fund services they can't access beyond schools for their kids and infrastructure maintenance. Social security? Fucking ha. Most immigrants don't have the option of paying into Social Security, because they don't have an SSN. Most that do happily pay into it because it legitimizes their contributions to American society and gives them a tax record to cite. If you're going to pick something to bash undocumented immigrants over, pick something better than a system that most can't benefit from, let alone pay into.



Why people use undocumented immigrant

Many pay into SSN because their work requires a SSN. I admit it is a catch 22 to get employment. I think a lot of immigrants take pride in that they are contributing to the system. I think they have as good of a chance of a law giving them citizenship or giving them access to SSN as I do to expect there will be any money left when I get older.

Still most undocumented migrants cause a deficit in taxes vs. benefits as was shown.

Until they've pled or been found guilty of a crime, they are not criminals, period. The legal system doesn't suddenly stop applying because someone is brown and doesn't speak English.

Yes, at that point they are suspects of improper entry and or Unlawful Presence. Also "illegal immigration" is still labelled as a civil matter and deportation is "administrative".

There's a catch 22 going on here. The 1893 Court decision Fong Yue Ting vs. United States still holds today, If illegal immigration was moved from civil, to criminal, illegal immigrant suspects would get due process and right to an attorney. This legal fund is trying to bypass the fact that currently they do not have the constitutional right to an attorney.

Now will deporting have a massive affect on agriculture, restaurant, and contracting industry? Fuck yeah. Food would get more expensive. Fruit and Vegetables would be harder to get. Possibly the only benefit I could see is restaurant staff finally getting a livable wage. But yeah, if just everyone got deported at once most restaurants in cities wouldn't even be able to operate the next day. Then you'll have the people asking for all 11 million to be deported wondering why their meal costs so much.

 

[Mully]

That's pretty cheap considering the possible circumstances come January 20th.

 

[Polari]

Not a fan of tax money being used for legal defense of people here illegally.

The rational response. If people want to start a defense fund for illegals, sure. Taxpayer money shouldn't go towards it though.

 

[numble]

Many pay into SSN because their work requires a SSN. I admit it is a catch 22 to get employment. I think a lot of immigrants take pride in that they are contributing to the system. I think they have as good of a chance of a law giving them citizenship or giving them access to SSN as I do to expect there will be any money left when I get older.

Still most undocumented migrants cause a deficit in taxes vs. benefits as was shown.

First off, the Heritage Foundation report that you like to cite acknowledges that, on average, all households are in a deficit of taxes vs benefits--this is why the government has a fiscal deficit, after all.

The report also shows that undocumented immigrants in lower classes have a lower deficit than the average across all US households (example: average US household without a high school degree has a deficit of $35,113, while the same for an undocumented household with the same characteristics is $20,485). The same for high school degree holders.

If you are evaluating what services should be provided to which groups based on whether they are in a surplus or deficit in terms of taxes paid/benefits received, you are in an extreme position. I think even many conservatives would acknowledge that government benefits should not be given to the rich who pay the most taxes. A lot of spending for the poor is also beneficial for society--I hope I do not need to explain why public education and medical benefits (which are the bulk of the benefits that the Heritage Foundation is discussing) can make a society better off in terms of crime, health and the economy.

 

[Livingskeletons]

SoCal is Texas Ligtht™.

California is more purple than people give credit. Outside the coastal areas there are a lot of conservative parts of the state. Including way up north beyond the bay area. The real Norcal so to speak.

 

[StopMakingSense]

California is more purple than people give credit. Outside the coastal areas there are a lot of conservative parts of the state. Including way up north beyond the bay area. The real Norcal so to speak.

Sure but the delta in population is GIGANTIC.

 

[Trojita]

First off, the Heritage Foundation report that you like to cite acknowledges that, on average, all households are in a deficit of taxes vs benefits--this is why the government has a fiscal deficit, after all.

The report also shows that undocumented immigrants in lower classes have a lower deficit than the average across all US households (example: average US household without a high school degree has a deficit of $35,113, while the same for an undocumented household with the same characteristics is $20,485). The same for high school degree holders.

If you are evaluating what services should be provided to which groups based on whether they are in a surplus or deficit in terms of taxes paid/benefits received, you are in an extreme position. I think even many conservatives would acknowledge that government benefits should not be given to the rich who pay the most taxes. A lot of spending for the poor is also beneficial for society--I hope I do not need to explain why public education and medical benefits (which are the bulk of the benefits that the Heritage Foundation is discussing) can make a society better off in terms of crime, health and the economy.

That's wrong. Look on the far right of the chart.

All Non-immigrant Households averaged have a fiscal deficit of $310.

All Lawful Immigrant Headed Households averaged a fiscal deficit of $4,344.

All Unlawful Immigrant Headed Households averaged a deficit of 14,387.

The non-immigrants without a high school education are definitely the biggest social burden on society by group. They aren't educated yet will not do the work illegal immigrants will do.

The only group with actual surpluses is college educated headed households.

Non-immigrant College Educated - $30,255
Legal Immigrant College Educated - $24,529
Unlawful Immigrant College Educated - $5,115

That last one is staggering in difference unfortunately.

 

[numble]

That's wrong. All Non-immigrant Households averaged have a fiscal deficit of $310.

All Lawful Immigrant Headed Households averaged a fiscal deficit of $4,344.

All Unlawful Immigrant Headed Households averaged a deficit of 14,387.

The non-immigrants without a high school education are definitely the biggest social burden on society by group. They aren't educated yet will not do the work illegal immigrants will do.

The only group with actual surpluses is College educated headed households.

Non-immigrant College Educated - $30,255
Legal Immigrant College Educated - $24,529
Unlawful Immigrant College Educated - $5,115

That last one is staggering in difference unfortunately.

That is not wrong. What I stated is factually true (based on Heritage Foundation) and you did not refute it. Your error is that you think "average US household" means "non-immigrant" for some reason, which is a bias in your thinking.

 

[Trojita]

That is not wrong. What I stated is factually true (based on Heritage Foundation) and you did not refute it. Your error is that you think "average US household" means "non-immigrant" for some reason, which is a bias in your thinking.

Where are you finding this

The report also shows that undocumented immigrants in lower classes have a lower deficit than the average across all US households

I was breaking it out into groups, but the Average Fiscal Deficit for All US Houses is $1,158. Unlawful Immigrants on average are at a fiscal deficit of $14,387.

There was no way the numbers were going to go the other way when you compare the deficits or surpluses of each group based on education. Non-immigrant households only have 9.7% of people without a high school degree while Unlawful Immigrants have 51% without a high school degree.

 

[Velcro Fly]

I never considered earlier that this is basically equal to the public defender system already in place. Coming back and reading this thread later on helped me to understand better the situation at hand and how L.A. and the county are going about it.

 

[numble]

Where are you finding this



I was breaking it out into groups, but the Average Fiscal Deficit for All US Houses is $1,158. Unlawful Immigrants on average are at a fiscal deficit of $14,387.

There was no way the numbers were going to go the other way when you compare the deficits or surpluses of each group based on education. Non-immigrant households only have 9.7% of people without a high school degree while Unlawful Immigrants have 51% without a high school degree.

I stated the numbers already. It is in the report:

(example: average US household without a high school degree has a deficit of $35,113, while the same for an undocumented household with the same characteristics is $20,485).

Again, the numbers are a red herring because the bulk of the "benefits" it reports are education benefits. But there is a strong public policy argument that public education benefits benefit society as much as they benefit a specific person, in terms of effects on crime and the economy.

 

[Trojita]

I stated the numbers already. It is in the report:


Again, the numbers are a red herring because the bulk of the "benefits" it reports are education benefits. But there is a strong public policy argument that public education benefits benefit society as much as they benefit a specific person, in terms of effects on crime and the economy.

Your statement is not a true statement

The report also shows that undocumented immigrants in lower classes have a lower deficit than the average across all US households

Does not mean Undocumented Immigrants without High School degrees vs. US Households without High School degrees. The way your sentence reads is undocumented immigrants (I'm assuming you mean those without high school degrees?) have a lower deficit than the average across all US Households, which is incorrect.

If the former is what you meant, that's already being cherry picked with the most outrageous number vs. the average.

I'm not going to disagree with that last point. It should also be stated that some students while being born to undocumented workers still qualify for being a natural born citizen if they were born here. So while the head of their household might be undocumented, the child is natural born.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Honestly whenever I hear someone talk about illegal immigrants taking jobs. I gotta laugh, cause we all know they're jobs that "Americans" wouldn't do.

 

[numble]

Your statement is not a true statement



Does not mean Undocumented Immigrants without High School degrees vs. US Households without High School degrees. The way your sentence reads is undocumented immigrants (I'm assuming you mean those without high school degrees?) have a lower deficit than the average across all US Households, which is incorrect.

If the former is what you meant, that's already being cherry picked with the most outrageous number vs. the average.

I'm not going to disagree with that last point. It should also be stated that some students while being born to undocumented workers still qualify for being a natural born citizen if they were born here. So while the head of their household might be undocumented, the child is natural born.

The statement you quoted was immediately followed by a parenthetical example to specifically clarify what the statement meant. I do not know why you would be confused when it was specifically clarified with numbers that can be cross-matched in case there was further confusion.

I agree that the Heritage Foundation misleadingly includes families with citizens and citizens that receive benefits in its "Unlawful Immigrant" data.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

im glad you left california too

I like this.

 

[Trojita]

The statement you quoted was immediately followed by a parenthetical example to specifically clarify what the statement meant. I do not know why you would be confused when it was specifically clarified with numbers that can be cross-matched in case there was further confusion.

I agree that the Heritage Foundation misleadingly includes families with citizens and citizens that receive benefits in its "Unlawful Immigrant" data.

We'll agree to disagree on what your statement actually meant.

Yeah, even if Heritage uses real numbers from the census they will still spin a narrative for their conservative mindset.

Also the group on average that uses the most benefits vs. putting into the system is actually legal immigrants. They aren't exactly wrong that legalizing all undocumented immigrants, even with a timelined system that doesn't give full benefits right away, would put a major strain the system. It would oddly be in the conservatives best interest to not deport people or scare them into deporting, but also making sure to block attempts at full naturalization. The jobs that are done by that group won't be replaced by other workers plus we can currently absorb what benefits are given, which is mostly in education. Deporting them literally doesn't serve anybody.

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship and I think our current immigration laws are not to the standards of what they should be in today's society.

 

[Stumpokapow]

A public defense is required because people are presumed innocent.

I don't think this follows; first, because while many accused defendants enjoy the presumption of legal innocence, they are not presumed to be factually innocent of the crime. Likewise, someone who is undocumented may be, on their face, guilty of some crime, but they still enjoy the presumption of legal innocence until their trial or hearing, whichever it may be. For example, someone caught red handed with drugs is almost certainly not factually innocent of possessing drugs, but they may or may not be legally guilty, and their apparent guilt doesn't qualify them less for public resources. Moreover, almost everyone who goes to trial with a public defender, mathematically, pleads guilty as part of a plea deal. This is the only way the system even keeps from collapsing; plea deals as essentially a form of ADR to reduce the court burden are necessary. We provide the defender knowing that by far the most likely scenario is that they will succeed in advising their client to plead guilty. I think you may have some misconception of how courts or public defenders work: most people charged with crimes are factually and legally guilty, and in many cases obviously so.

Second, criminals are eligible for post-guilt defence assistance, both in the sentencing phase of trials and for post-conviction appeals.

So, I'll ask again, is it the case that we should not waste public resources on those we "know" (not by the law, but by it being obvious) are guilty of some crime?

They aren't related, and equating the two is intellectually dishonest.

You may feel the comparison is invalid, but what is this dishonesty? The basis for the dis-analogy you presented between the two is incorrect. I am not trying to trick you. I am expanding on the principle you articulated for the provision of state resources. I think those persons who interact with the legal system (whether criminal or civil, and regardless of citizenship or nationality) should be provided a full defence. This is not dishonest, even if you agree with it. I am presenting my position absolutely honestly.

 

[Codeblue]

Ok, so morally I have an issue with money being used to shield people from the consequences of illegal immigration while others who have legally immigrated foot the bill.

The funds for this should be raised specifically for this purpose and should not come from funds that would otherwise benefit legal citizens.

Please do not feel sorry for legal immigrants or use them as a defense. It was a long process to get here, and if we were in dire need then I would have been long dead before our approval rolled around. My father was a well paid professor and it took every last drop of his 10 years of savings and retirement to get here, get settled, and find a job. Not everyone had the luxury I did, and the idea of slamming the gate behind me or asking other people to wait because I had to doesn't sit well with me. This is life and death for some people. I don't know any legal immigrants that harbor that sort of petty resentment. We don't feel slighted, and it'd be great if politicians stopped pretending we do.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I did. And I don't see where he mentioned that he wanted to throw away the current state of the criminal justice system. I saw Stump conflate the two and a bunch of other posters dog pile on and now some veiled accusations of racism. I don't see a hell of a lot of intellectually honest discourse though.

The initial claim is that we should not spend money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them. I argued that this was comparable to spending money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them, which we already do in the form of public defenders, in that both involve spending money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them. If you agree with him that we should not spend money defending those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them, then that seems fine to me.

But if you're in favour of spending money defending some of those who break the law from the enforcement of the law against them, it's not clear to me why a guilty but not yet convicted murderer gets extra protection while a J-1 student who accidentally overstays their OPT period due to a lapse between their OPT expiry and their company getting an H-1B gets less protection (or any other number of contrived examples to show that immigration violations are largely less spectacular than criminal defence). What is the moral principle that extends state resources to citizens accused of crimes, non-citizens accused of non-immigration crimes, but not non-citizens accused of immigration crimes?

 

[Tagyhag]

Please do not feel sorry for legal immigrants or use them as a defense. It was a long process to get here, and if we were in dire need then I would have been long dead before our approval rolled around. My father was a well paid professor and it took every last drop of his 10 years of savings and retirement to get here, get settled, and find a job. Not everyone had the luxury I did, and the idea of slamming the gate behind me or asking other people to wait because I had to doesn't sit well with me. This is life and death for some people. I don't know any legal immigrants that harbor that sort of petty resentment. We don't feel slighted, and it'd be great if politicians stopped pretending we do.

Ha, I wish other immigrants had your way of viewing the entire situation.

My Grandma is still closed off (Despite my best tries) about illegal immigrants getting a pathway to citizenship because my Grandpa and her worked hard to get here legally.

 

[99Luffy]

Honestly whenever I hear someone talk about illegal immigrants taking jobs. I gotta laugh, cause we all know they're jobs that "Americans" wouldn't do.

They are taking jobs. From legal foreign workers...
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/temporary.html

 

[Whitephantomzx]

Thank god I left California. Spending taxpayer money to protect people who are breaking the law from enforcement of those laws is idiotic.

sure doesn't seem to stop you from abusing them for cheap labor and literally builingd the country your standing on but of course the law only applies when benefits people like you. You know what we should really do everyone so called businessman who used these "illegal immigrants" who still pay taxes probably more then what ever Trump paid inand get few to no Benefits from it mind you should be I'm jail to then let's see how many people
Will be able to sit on there high horse fuckin hypocrites

 

[GameAddict411]

Excluding empathy, deporting all illegal immigrants is going to gut California economy, so these funds are going to help combat that. People seem to forget how much illegal immigrants contribute to the economy nation wide. In fact, I would argue that they contributed more to the economy than Trump and his scum ever did in their lifetimes.

I also love how people throw the "illegal" excuse to deny these people any help. The fact it's illegal doesn't mean it's moral to cause so much human suffering to deport people who have lived in this country since they were kids. Some of them have not never lived anywhere else, and because of the lack of one piece of paper they have to endure years of suffering. The other stupid excuse is because "they should have come through legal means." I am sorry, but not everyone can do that. Most of these people didn't have a choice when they came here, especially young children.

 

[GameAddict411]

What improvements?


Who is ignoring anything? This action is the opposite of ignoring.

They start with more funding at least? Did you know that in LA the average wait time for asylum interview is 4-5 years? That doesn't include the waiting time for the decisions.