[Dave]

So which immigrants are you deporting? Mr Yezza had lived in the UK for 13 years and was applying for British citizenship so I assume all those who arrived after 1995, all those who have chosen to remain residents not citizens, all offspring of residents born in the US and US citizens and all those that can't speak English. Have I missed any category of undesirable? Lets have a count 12% of the US population are residents but not citizens, 40 millions approx.and illegal immigrants arrive at a rate of 1.5 million a year. So 13 yrs x 1.5 roughly 20 millions. Cannot speak English fluently 35 millions. Second generation immigrants can't find a number sorry but I think we have enough to be going on with. You can reduce the population of the US by a third with your policies.

For the United States, I would support deportation of all illegal aliens. Illegal aliens should gain an opportunity to stay in the country if they can demonstrate English proficiency, a clean criminal record (aside from obvious immigration related crimes), and a commitment to pay back taxes. There are 12-20 million illegal aliens in the United States, and I would suspect that your estimate of 20 million is correct.

Legal residents of majority age who cannot speak English fluently should also be deported. Any aliens who have committed felonies should be deported. According to US law they already have to be, but many large cities are sanctuary cities which refuse to comply with US immigration law. The deportation of legal aliens should be phased in over perhaps a decade.

All those deported under such an immigration reform policy should receive a cash stipend, as should their country of origin so as not to be overwhelmed. This could be coupled also perhaps with offers of US technical assistance and aid in order to modernize their own economies to reduce incentives for their own people to emigrate in the first place.

I may post a thread in the North America forum later about this, or perhaps the nationalism one.

[Suska]

I've heard that there are a number of bureaucratic issues that make this strategy implausible.

As I understand a town must have 24 detainees before they bus them to the border, that means they must house lesser numbers of detainees until they do. They must also provide each of them 4000 dollars. All hearsay, but it would explain why small towns like the one I live in don't want to... they cant!

[Dave]

Most of the deportation could actually be self-deportation by simply making it impossible for illegal aliens to work, open a bank account, etc.

[ingliz]

Dave:

According to my research only 6% of immigrants of working age have so little English it effects their ability to find employment. Most residents who do not speak English are aged dependents of first generation immigrants. Would you send them back to the home country?

[Dave]

Yes.

[ingliz]

If people have entered the US legally what damn difference does their name, politics, religion, ethnicity etc make if they pay their taxes and abide by the law. I think you are on a very slippery slope if you start deciding arbitrarily what is 'American". I know you deny you are a racist but what else would you call somebody who denies a person his rights just because of his name.

[Dave]

"Rights" are in fact quite arbitrary. They are decided upon by society and enshrined in law, and there is no reason they cannot change with evolving community standards or other such changes. In fact, they have largely changed in a negative direction (although certainly some changes were positive) in the West in the past century.

I am a pan-nationalist. I believe in the "right", if you will, of national communities to set their own standards, including who may belong to that community. A key component of the American nation is English language fluency.

Furthermore, I am not claiming any exclusive American right here. I no more want to see Mexico Americanized than I want to see America Mexicanized.

[ingliz]

I am talking about legal rights, not nonsensical human rights, and a principle of US jurisprudence is the prohibition of ex post facto law. Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. Your obsession with race/nationalism is leading you to discard the right to equal protection under the law. This is also a right you enjoy; why do you want to throw this right away?

[Dave]

Equal protection under the law is a dead letter in America. Certain officially designated victim groups have been granted superior legal status, and government agencies and their employees enjoy sovereign immunity, meaning that we no longer even have a government of laws. The government further claims the right to imprison people without charges today.

In any case, you are right to raise this issue. It is one of the greatest achievements of the Anglo-American tradition in law and is not to be discarded lightly. However, current citizenship laws are in conflict with the 14th amendment and are, theoretically at least, null and void. Resident aliens, can, of course, have their status changed at any time and that has in fact been done multiple times in our history.

Regardless, while returning to the original intent of the 14th amendement would merely correct improper law, the improper law is now enshrined in precedent. Correcting this would in essence forfeit equal protection under the law.

So yes, I would advocate modifying that principle in this instance. Legal rights are commonly circumscribed in a time of crisis, and we will approach that crisis if prudent action is not taken.

[sportspadawan]

Personally, I have to agree with Dave (when talking about American deportation laws). I believe that the entire purpose of the world even containing these nations is to preserve the very culture and language of which it has been raised from. Like Dave said, I do not want to see America mexicanized or Mexico americanized. I believe that each country should contain it's own individuality and language. And yes, Americans descended from immigrants, but that has virtually nothing to do with present day. Those who are raised up in American culture and language, and are legal citizens, are Americans. If immigrants want to enter the U.S. legally, and have no criminal records and are fluent in English, let them in. I do not, at all, want to see the culture upon which I have been raised up with suddenly destroyed by people who ultimately are not allowed to be within our country. Experiencing cultures is what makes this world so great.[/quote]