Elections Mass Deportation: What would it look like and the effect it would have?

[Rod1]

Target employers of illegal immigrants with serious consequences.

This is the only viable solution, and that's why shit never gets done no matter how much politicians posture.

They know that going after employers is a losing strategy politically.

 

[Halge]

Big difference between making 20 million people who spend money in the economy vanish

Vs

Letting people be free and and pay them for labor and share in the profits, which get circulated back into the economy and increases in tax revenue

You really think mass deportation and ending slavery are comparable?

Uh?

Getting rid of low-income earners would not be a major blow to domestic consumption. Because, you know, they are low-income earners.
It would also not be a major blow to public finances, since illegal immigrants pay miniscule amounts of taxes.

Nor would it -more to my actual point- be a blow to the businesses employing them. The idea is the U.S economy depends on illegal immigrants for low-wage labour. It doesn't. Just like it turned out the U.S economy wasn't dependant on even lower-wage slave labour.

 

[AbominableJoman]

It would look glorious. And would help stop illegal aliens from being treated like slaves, and receiving slave wages.

 

[nonoob]

I think it’s unrealistic personally. I think one thing you can do though is immediate deportation for anyone caught committing a crime that isn’t a citizen.

ST, "Mass" is subjective term, a totally undefined amount, and door to door searching for illegal people should Never Happen. Any non-citizen caught breaking laws or committing crimes, including operating a vehicle, can financially harm and/or endanger the public from a person(s) that should not be there. Deportation is a tough choice but the only known fix.

 

[avenue94]

If illegal immigrants are skilled and aren’t criminals, why did they need to enter civilised countries illegally?

How long do you think it takes to get US citizenship?

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Uh?

Getting rid of low-income earners would not be a major blow to domestic consumption. Because, you know, they are low-income earners.
It would also not be a major blow to public finances, since illegal immigrants pay miniscule amounts of taxes.

Nor would it -more to my actual point- be a blow to the businesses employing them. The idea is the U.S economy depends on illegal immigrants for low-wage labour. It doesn't. Just like it turned out the U.S economy wasn't dependant on even lower-wage slave labour.

I don't know what to tell you other than you are incorrect and should read more about the subject.

In Georgia alone, illegal immigrants paid over $1 billion in taxes lol

As of 2015:

Illegal immigrants making up 25% of farm workers in the US

20% of maintenance works

17% of construction workers

12% of food prep workers

 

[Halge]

I don't know what to tell you other than you are incorrect and should read more about the subject.

In Georgia alone, illegal immigrants paid over $1 billion in taxes lol

As of 2015:

Illegal immigrants making up 25% of farm workers in the US

20% of maintenance works

17% of construction workers

12% of food prep workers

In the U.S as a whole, tax payers paid $4.7 trillion last year. Do you need me to explain why illegal immigrants contribution is miniscule by comparison?

As for the other numbers: You don't provide a source, and a quick google search shows no two estimates are alike. In other words, no-one knows how many illegal immigrants are employed, or in which fields. But who even cares? What's your point? Obviously having a large population of illegal immigrants in a country will mean they make up a percentage of certain sectors. Without them, the sectors shrink. So what? Then the sectors shrink, which is no problem for the country at large because, for one thing, the population at large also shrinks once you remove X million illegals.

 

[DoctorTaco]

immigrants at least work in the country, they'll be paying rent somewhere, buying food somewhere. They recycle some portion of their wages back into the country. Outsourced labor doesn't.

Sale taxes too

 

[Hog-train]

All the people coming into the country aren't actually illegal.

They're exploiting the broken asylum laws legally. They just get a court date and released into the country.

 

[traditionally_irreverent]

Less traffic?

 

[Fedor>Cain]

In the U.S as a whole, tax payers paid $4.7 trillion last year. Do you need me to explain why illegal immigrants contribution is miniscule by comparison?

As for the other numbers: You don't provide a source, and a quick google search shows no two estimates are alike. In other words, no-one knows how many illegal immigrants are employed, or in which fields. But who even cares? What's your point? Obviously having a large population of illegal immigrants in a country will mean they make up a percentage of certain sectors. Without them, the sectors shrink. So what? Then the sectors shrink, which is no problem for the country at large because, for one thing, the population at large also shrinks once you remove X million illegals.

The source was Cornell.

You are looking at tax payers as a whole without focusing on specific regions where they are more predominant. Losing a billion dollars fucks with state budgets pretty badly while it doesn't seem like much at a national scale.

Getting rid of 20 million people isn't going to be good for your economy. Nobody is sitting here saying it's going to turn America into the Fallout Wasteland or anything like that, but to act like it will be insignificant is silly.

 

[tenniswhiz]

Out of the solutions both your paragraph and Vance give, only one actually deports people already here. "Deport the ones that have committed crimes" is feasible because it assumes that police already have them in custody.

But removing employment opportunities and taxing remittances isn't deporting them. It's making life miserable for them in the hopes that they'll leave on their own.

The vast, vast, majority of the undocumented are not in police custody and are not committing crimes so you'd have to go and hunt them down. This would obviously be extremely costly and would run into all sorts of legal, civil liberties issues. Vance knows this so of course he glosses over it with "work your way down from there."

Yes!
So a candidate could say they’re going to do it, and then not do it once they’re elected.
Happens all the time.