Is it morally right to deport millions of people?

Not many people talk about, although you are starting to hear it more, the huge, huge impact it would have on the economy, would essentially send it into a recession, especially given the current economic conditions in the country. The best that could happen is a recession, the worse would be stagflation, which is extremely hard to get rid of. Get rid of 11 million people who are mostly working and contributing to the economy and then get rid of $2T in government spending will be a very interesting mess.

11 million people who are mostly working and contributing to the economy ??? Really? First, they cross the border against the law. Then they get a fake social security #, also against the law. Then they lie to their employer. Their employer is breaking the law by hiring them. Most of the 11 million are employed??? Why are the states complaining that they are a drain on state resources?

....by deporting illegals with serious criminal records to the nations that will actually take them back? It's not like our country needs to keep felons here because we don't have enough crime, after all.

Beyond that, the old rule of the ER surgeon comes to mind; stop the bleeding. Build a reasonable border fence, patrol it, and make sure that employers use the checks that are available to make sure employees are legal to hire. That might require a new law. We certainly don't have enough ICE agents and judges to get 11 million (or however many it really is) people deported, but if jobs dry up, illegals will tend to self-deport.

And then we just might find that employers looking for low wage employees will start looking at citizens who hadn't been able to find jobs previously. We could possibly greatly reduce our welfare payments as people are suddenly able to find work because they're not competing against as many other "low-skill" or "low-wage" competitors.

The rough part here is that we would be sending a lot of Mexicans back into what is a war zone--I put the kibosh on my son's proposed mission trip to Ensenada (down the coast from Tijuana) because its drug fueled murder rate was about as high as it's ever been in Gary or Detroit, and the best estimates I've seen indicate that it's about 30% underestimated because drug lords hide the bodies. So we would have to partner wonderfully with Mexico City to help defuse that and grow the Mexican economy.

If they are hard working people, their country needs them.

It's not like our country needs to keep felons here because we don't have enough crime, after all.

I wonder if anyone else sees the irony here.

Whether you believe they are employed or not, they contribute greatly to the economy. They buy clothes, food, cars, gas, rent/mortgages….. All of that spending creates jobs for everyone. If you were to suddenly deport people who may have car loans, credit cards, rents/mortgages, you suddenly create defaults and a collapse on demand. If this was maybe 500K to 1M people that might be something else. But it is 3% of the US population. I don’t see non-immigrants rushing to fill jobs picking vegetables in the fields, or plucking chickens in food processing centers. In addition, many do pay taxes. Some pay payroll taxes, most pay taxes on purchases, gas…. Non partisan studies do outline that most work in some form or fashion (as they don’t qualify for federal relief, it is oftentimes the only money they have) and that crime is lower statistically among illegal immigrants compared to the general population.

If you don’t think that a sudden and immediate departure of 3% of the US population has no economic impact on the country than you may be missing basic economics. While they did come here illegally, they are here. Instead of deporting them all, we should deport the criminals and offer paths for the others, while at the same time stopping the influx at the borders.

Like Ken states, the irony is a bit funny. We have a felon that will be entering the White House, with someone who came here illegally by his side, helping him get elected thru his $200M donation and now running a Government Efficiency office, going after a government that awards his companies billions of dollars in contracts.

David, if I could snap my fingers and remove all illegals, whatever percent of the population that is, yes, that would wreak havoc in construction, restaurants, agriculture, meatpacking, and the like. However, you yourself admit that this is not possible. So let's deal with what is actually possible, not a straw man.

Best I can envision is removing as many violent felons among illegals as possible, and then proceeding to reduce the flow into the country, and finally to start requiring businesses to verify eligibility to work here. A process like that would take years and give businesses the chance to adapt.

Would there be some issues, like a rise in low skilled wages? Yes, and given the amount of welfare payments we're making to those who can't earn a decent living, this just might be a feature, not a bug. But the long and short of it is that illegals, whatever their blessings of work and such to the country, also impose burdens like the cost of educating their children--they tend to have a lot of them, if you haven't noticed.

Finally, regarding Trump's "felony" conviction, let's remember what it was; a New York law allowed the "resurrection" of expired misdemeanor charges with an unspecified (even at the jury verdict) dealing with Trump appearing to hide hush money to a mistress. Suffice it to say that this investigation would only happen with a politically motivated DA, and the real crime here is the "arrangements" that induced Michael Colangelo to leave a senior position at the DOJ to work with Alvin Bragg.

I voted against Trump in the primaries due to his adultery and more, but when a prosecutor uses a novel method to "get" his political opponents, injustice is being served. You could put a huge portion of New York businessmen in jail if the approach used by Bragg were consistently followed, really.

Best I can envision is removing as many violent felons among illegals as possible, and then proceeding to reduce the flow into the country, and finally to start requiring businesses to verify eligibility to work here. A process like that would take years and give businesses the chance to adapt.

Bert, I agree with you about most of this. I would like to see as many of the felons removed as possible. I'm also for securing the border rather than having an uncontrolled influx. Where I might differ is that I would to see a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who are residing in the US peacefully. They may have come illegally, but they are here now and if they are being productive members of society I think it's in our best interest to work out a pathway to citizenship.

Finally, regarding Trump's "felony" conviction

On this point I just see things differently from you. And I'm pretty sure you see things differently than me regarding the case with Aileen Cannon. Quite a few issues with that case as well, and she certainly cleared the pathway for Trump to avoid any prosecution and become president.

Bert,

My comments were toward’s Trump and his follower’s ambitions. Whether he can or can’t do it will remain to be seen. He wasn’t very successful with the border wall his first time around, so we will just have to see what happens. My response was to the general notion that all illegal immigrants should be removed, which Trump has claimed numerous times as his desire. I am no problem with deporting criminals that are illegal immigrants right away.

In terms of education. Public schools are mostly funded by Property Taxes, Ad Valorem taxes and sales taxes. Each state is different, but this is where the vast majority comes from. All taxes paid by immigrants regardless of their legal status.

Whether you want to believe Trump was fairly convicted or not, he was impeached twice, he has been indicted 4 times. No president has been impeached twice, no president has ever been indicted. He was found liable for raping someone and for defamation of character, convicted of 34 felonies, and has 88 open criminal charges against him. Maybe people can argue whether something was unfair or motivated or whatever, but to defend him as a criminally clean individual, I think is just a stretch. I am not even including the 26 separate accusations of sexual assault claimed by others. I am not going to argue these one way or the other because it is too time consuming.

OK, the first one was because he'd suggested that Ukraine might do well to investigate the arrangements under which Hunter Biden had scored close to a million bucks despite not knowing the business or Ukraine, and the second was "incitement of insurrection" for....telling people to peacefully protest what he felt was injustice in the election. Two of the four indictments were for that latter part, too, and the other two were "highly creative" sets of charges that really (IMO) ought to get the prosecutors disbarred.

Moreover, he was not found liable for raping anyone; it was defamation alone, and those 88 open charges...really, most of the prosecution of Trump is not charges that would be brought against any other person, but are rather of the "process is the punishment" type.

Sorry, that's not justice. That's harassment that, again, ought to get a lot of lawyers disbarred, starting with Alvin Bragg and Michael Colangelo. Again, no great fan of Trump, but if the law doesn't work for someone I dislike, neither does it work for me. And that's a result I don't want.

Yep, poor Trump. Just not fair.

He was found liable for sexually abusing Jean Carroll in 1996. Given the recordings of him talking about women, his close ties to Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein claimed in taped recordings that he was Trump’s closest friend).

I won’t convince you that Trump probably has bad character and has most likely committed offenses. I personally see it that while some may have motivations (many criminal proceedings do), there is some truth there as a result of the massive totality. Like Trump said, he could go into Times Square and shoot someone and his followers would defend him.

You don't need to convince me that Trump has bad character, and may have committed crimes. Agreed 100% there, and one thing that scared the tar out of me in 2016 was the possibility that there was a reason Trump did so well in NY real estate when the Mob basically ran the city. Where I part ways with you is in thinking that "legally novel theories" are a just way to address these things, especially in a country where open & shut cases like Hilliary Clinton's unsecured server were dropped.

If you're introducing charges against Trump that would not be levied against anyone else, again, injustice is being served. So when someone points out that Trump is (or shall become, per Don's comment) a "felon" based on charges like this, it simply doesn't mean what the term means in cases where "legally novel theories" are not being used.

Like Ken states, the irony is a bit funny. We have a felon that will be entering the White House, with someone who came here illegally by his side, helping him get elected thru his $200M donation and now running a Government Efficiency office, going after a government that awards his companies billions of dollars in contracts.

You are as gullible as they hoped you would be.

From Andy McCarthy in National Review:

Despite the Democrats’ campaign rhetoric, Trump is not a convicted felon now, a jury’s guilty verdict notwithstanding. Only the court’s formal entry of a judgment of conviction after sentencing makes a defendant a convicted felon.

Here is the link: Trump Hush Money Case Postponement: Is Alvin Bragg Trying to Manipulate Trump? | National Review

Probably behind a paywall.

I don't think Trump is a great guy, and wish there were a better choice, but he will be the next president whatever we like. I think it is best to use accurate terms to describe him and not just rhetoric.