who have worked for 5 years, know English and have not committed a crime in the US (except for crossing the border illegally) a bad idea?
It would only legalize a small fraction of the 12 million illegals - but those who are legalized are ok folks.
The rest can be round up and deported.
It's only a good idea if the border is also fortified. Otherwise, it would only encourage more illegal immigration.
>>71506604
This. If they think they can get amnesty and welfare under whatever bullshit new name liberal democrats make up, theyll come by the millions. See germany.
>>71506604
>It's only a good idea if the border is also fortified. Otherwise, it would only encourage more illegal immigration.
It would of course only apply to people already in the country on e.g. Dec 31, 2016. Anyone coming afterwards would be in the new "no amnesty" regime. And yes, it would only work together with a good fence and border patrols.
>>71506495
youre asking the wrong murkin, gunther. i love mexibros, their food.
They HAVE committed a crime in the US once they illegally crossed the US border. And since they have no documentation, nobody has any proof that they have never commited a crime.
I dont mind the idea of a small amount of hardworking latinos crossing legally and becoming apart of our community, but an illegal immigrant of any kind is either a parasite or a stray dog that you cannot predict or control.
What would be practical long term would be if illegal, they should be rounded up. If they have no criminal record here or in mexico and have worked for 7+ years the crossing should be forgiven and paperwork for proper immigration started. Otherwise forceful deportation, no exceptions.
Not a trumpy but i think the wall is a good idea. The vatican has a wall. China did before it was cool. All we have is a fence.
>>71506495
They broke the law and undermined the sovereignty of the US's borders.
They have to go, but they can come back "legally".
>>71507913
>What would be practical long term would be if illegal, they should be rounded up. If they have no criminal record here or in mexico and have worked for 7+ years the crossing should be forgiven and paperwork for proper immigration started. Otherwise forceful deportation, no exceptions.
So our difference is 5 years vs 7 years?
Why are the 2 years more important?
>>71508030
>They have to go, but they can come back "legally".
If they could come in legally, they would have done it in the first place.
Not even a European scientist or wealthy person can come to America legally easily. A Hispanic without a high class university degree has zero chance as in zero... unless he marries an American.
>>71506495
Because we don't need ANY of them.
Never mind the fact that there are already too many Hispanics in this country.
>>71508064
I meant 5. A typo. 5 years here for the immigration paperwork to be started if illegal and then the next 5 for proper assimilation for citizenship.
I would suggest that such an idea only be temporary to sort out the mess and afterwards go back to the "if your illegal, your getting the boot back to where your from no exceptions" policy to discourage others from even trying to sneak over again. After a wall is build. And any intentional destruction/vandalism of the border wall to be extremely illegal.
>>71508143
T. "white" descendant of Bryan o'nigger, Bianca Bigassoti, Anna White King and Chief Moses 'big nose' Caplan
>>71508694
>Slavs
>White
