Riiiiight, but....

I'm talking belt-feds and M-16s taken out of army depots

mmmhmmm... riiiiiight.... but....

Machine Guns were not always illegal to own.

you are not talking about inanimate objects, you are talking about people with the ability to move around themselves.

however, crossing the border into the US without passport, visa, or citizenship has always been illegal.

So a universal amnesty for people who are gainfully employed, pay taxes and do not have a criminal record, with a very specific cutoff date, is not far beyond a certain level of precedent.

So you're only proposing a ban on assault mexicans.

single-action mexicans can stay.

okay... you announce that, i move in with a friend of mine, he gives me a job and i can become an american...?

(yes that would actually be a possibility for me in that case 😄 )

jokes aside, the point still remains, they didn't just break a law by crossing a border.

To exist in the United States in such a way requires repeated breach of law.

The point I'm making is that if that's the -only- breach of law they've made, and they've contributed to society outside of that, I see no reason other than a borderline spastic level of absolutist interpretation of the law (and justice cannot be absolute) that they should not be given a road to citizenship.

Working in the US without a Visa is also a crime, taxes or no. (Theoretically, everyone pays taxes, anyway.)

Giving a squatter tenancy in a house isn't justice, even if they put up nice curtains.

i mostly see a problem with the practicality

the principle... kind of... but there are multiple principles involved 😄

We're in the situation we're in because we've been lax on our laws. DACA, by the way stands for 'Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals'. The entire basis of that statement is that action will be taken later on.

Essentially, it bought time for a propaganda war to be fought, to try to fight for sympathy for the plight of the 'Dreamer'.

And I'm not *entirely* unsympathetic, either. But there's no fair way to do this.

Let's say, for instance, we only deport criminals.

The mother has a clean record. The child is in school. The father has a DUI accident that injured someone, while uninsured and unlicensed.

How would your proposed system handle this?

That sucks, good bye daddy.

So now the child grows up in a single-parent home?

you've separated the family unit.

No, I've not, they can move back with him.

I mean, I guess.

I still don't like that the citizenship that our Legal immigrants earned through years of effort is cheapened by a decree of amnesty.

Would this amnesty apply to those who are here on their visa working towards citizenship anyway?

you could start them at the point of an immigrant just coming in with a work visa

but yeah, giving them preferential treatment compared to legal immigrants would be... bad...

I mean, legal immigrants actually have to invest a lot of time and money into immigration

As is the case with most things legal and not

If you're willing to cut corners and do things illegally, you can generally do things easier, cheaper, etc.

Changing laws and requirements due to the already illegal actions of any group typically serves to hurt those who operate legally. Plenty of examples to back that up, as well. Many topical.

Enforcement of existing laws is the only just starting point.

when every country is a shithole, then no one will need to worry about immigration ... i think that is the plan of some people....

And it defeats the purpose of those laws to begin with.