patrick.net

Astrid,

You know, there is a Federal Dstrict Court in the Marianas Islands. A federal judge here in the Central District of CA began his legal career by clerking there and liked it so much that he stayed for several years before coming back to LA.

I've seen pictures of Saipan, and it looks pretty sweet. I don't know what your career plans are, but maybe you can talk your firm into letting you clerk for a year? I'm sure they'd be thrilled to do it, an associate with a clerkship will add to their prestiege.

What could be better than a clerkship in the Northern Marianas? You still have to clerk all day -- but you can chill on the beach all night! And your salary will allow you to live a pretty comfortable life there; the same cannot be said in LA, SF, or most of the other major US cities.

Joe,

That was a good observation. On top of this, I maintain that it is the average consumers who are at fault for their own long-term plights. They want to emulate the life of the riches. The only way to afford such a grand albeit pretentious lifestyle is to import cheap labors who eventually cause social disintegration. Cheap manufactured goods, too. Immigrants are not to blame but the greedy and pretentious consumers.

Ok, you've convinced me. Deport all the illegals. Some expected consequences re: housing:

- Double Income families would have to pay more or drop one earner out of the labor pool. Net result - even more jobs available and less competition on future house bids. DI FBs with kids are thrown to the wolves.

- Baby Boomers and Silent Gen forced to mow their own lawns. Increased housing turnover due to a sudden surge in Heart Attacks.

- Rental Prices plummet with huge new vacancy rates applying downward pressure everywhere.

All this benefits me personally, so I should support it, right?

Kant's Categorical Imperative says otherwise.

Like it or not, we’re creatures of human evolution. Clannishness was an evolutionary necessity and it dies hard. Every one of those little vegan peaceniks (and keep in mind that I almost never think war is a good solution for any problem) had ancestors who scalped enemies and oppressed slaves.

Yes. And most of the young vegan peaceniks today have Boomer parents who try to scalp their customers and oppress their Gen-X employees (sorry, just couldn't resist a perfect setup for a BB/Gen-X jab). :mrgreen:

You’re also ignoring how much of the US economy is entirely internal and not subject to outsourcing. Is it really productive for this economy to have so many realtors and mortgage brokers? Wouldn’t this economy be even more productive if there were fewer of them looking for their next big score?

Astrid,

I think you would be surprised how much could be done overseas. Especially with the internet. Manufacturing, agriculture, banking & finance, engineering, technology, R&D, services (even accounting, advertising & legal!), many medical services, etc... Which leaves.... military (including most contractors), resource extraction like mining and drilling, restaurant and retail work, some medical services, washing cars, multi-level marketing, newspaper routes, gardening, nannies, selling oranges...am I missing anything?

You are absolutely right that we have too many realtors and too much investment in residential real estate. While I am not a free-market purist, I do think that a lot of our problems would be ameliorated by a more "hands-off" government.

Getting back to the housing bubble, look at how all of the well-intentioned laws, which were supposed to make housing more accessible, have actually assured that housing prices continue to inflate out of reach of future generations. We have chosen to limit supply (through restrictive zoning laws, catering to NIMBYism, etc.), while stimulating demand (through tax breaks like Prop 13, mortgage interest deductibility, capital gains exclusion, etc.) We have further stimulated housing prices in some areas by misallocating public resources so that the quality of your child's public school depends on your zip code.

In order to begin to reverse the misallocation of resources toward housing (and away from other forms of investment) we just need to remove some of this regulatory clutter and stop trying to engage in social engineering through the tax code. For instance, if mortgage interest is deductible because housing is "important," then rent should be tax deductible too (neither should be deductible, IMO, but that's another discussion). If someone can exempt $500K of capital gains from taxation when they sell a house, then why not allow the same if they sell their small business?

These policies have a real, tangible effect. In effect, the government is telling you that you *should* buy a house instead of getting an education or investing in a small business.

FRIFY,

Who said anything about forcibly deporting 12 million illegals? I don't think this would even be practical, much less politically feasible. Moral (fitting into the KCI)? Well, that depends on your POV. They broke in knowing that there might be consequences --including deportation. Other countries --including Mexico btw-- routinely deport illegals. Can't say it's morally "wrong", but practically speaking it's pretty much impossible.

I don't think this would be at all necessary. If we merely started removing illegals' easy access to jobs and all the "free"/subsidized healthcare, education, housing and prosecuted & heavily fined employers. there would be no need to even try. Once you stop subsidizing and start dis-incentivize such behavior, the problem tends to go away on its own. As in, many will voluntarily return to their home countries.

That said, I am ok with expanding the paths to legal immigration (within reasonable bounds) --especially valuable high-skill workers.

HARM,
Thanks for approving my post.

I agree that allowing the maximum number of legal, taxable immigrants that can be assimilated is a good policy. However, we cannot allow everyone who wants to come here to immigrate overnight, or we would have a population of about 4-5 billion (approx. = third world’s population). I doubt that you or I would not want to live in a U.S. with 4-5 billion impoverished inhabitants.

Perhaps we don't disagree as much as I thought. I agree with your first sentence. I think it is a matter of figuring out how many people to allow in at a given time and how to regulate the flow. IMO, the current quotas are way too low to be realistic, which is why I support some kind of change of the status quo.

I disagree, however, with the premise of your second sentence---I know you didn't mean it literally, but I think it is a common fallacy that opening the doors would cause every poor person in the world to cram into the US. In any case, I wouldn't advocate completely unrestricted immigration--just a more permissive and realistic policy than we have today. But even if we did throw open the borders, I think that immigration would stop as soon as the supply of unskilled jobs dried up.

Most people are comfortable staying with their families, where they grew up and where the cost of living is low. The average rural agricultural worker in China would be completely befuddled by life in the US. Only the *above*-average, restless, ambitious types are willing to make the journey, suffer the hardships and indignities, and try to make a better life for their families. These are exactly the kind of people we should want as citizens of our country. Let the elderly, sick, lazy and indigent stay behind. Harsh, maybe, but that's how I see it.

Glen,

I don't get it. The solution to outsourcing (and I am by no means convinced that those jobs are all that easy to relocate. Proximity to the customers and knowledge of the customers are huge advantages in most of those fields) is to import more low paying workers, thus straining our government resources further and risk destablizing society at large? That doesn't seem like a step forward. You have not convinced me of the necessity for these workers, certainly not to the extent that I've convinced of their long term costs and strain on our society.

I agree that in a perfect world, every human being would start their life on an equal playing field, be given an education that maximizes his or her potential, and be compensated according to his or her merit. But we're not there yet. We're not even capable of doing so in the US. In the meantime, we've created a higher living standard in the US. Is it better to lower that living standard to the point where the US become as messed up and dysfunctional as the countries these people came from? Or to try to restrict the source, perhaps provide some aid and encouragement so that their country become less messed up and more functioning?

Joe,

Thanks. :)

SFWoman,

I'm not saying it's a good thing, just that it could happen. I hope it doesn't, because it would be awful. I have a couple of friends who would get deported. But if there is another terrorist attack, the American public will be interested in surviving, and nothing will take precedence over that.

This is one of the reasons why I am such a staunch supporter of President Bush's policies. Suppose the Muslims get ahold of a nuclear weapon and detonate it in Philadelphia. What do you think will happen to the people in the Middle East if that were to occur? I think there is a very good chance that we would kill them all. If we didn't know how many more nukes were out there, wheter we'd be hit again, etc., we might well decide to eliminate the entire Middle East as a precaution. For sure Iran would be attacked. We're willing to engage in the charade of negotiations now, mostly becuase we don't want to hurt the people of Iran, but there won't be any further negotations if someone detonates a nuke here. We would not care about collateral damage, either.

President Bush is desperately racing aginst time to stop this from happening. The reason we are in Iraq is to save the lives of the people of the region. It would be a lot easier for us to just kill them all, or at least crush them like bugs. And we could, easily. But that would be evil, so we are giving them a chance to reform first. But if they hit us again, people will be a lot less concerned about the innocent people in the Middle East, and more interested in ensuring that no one can ever hit us again. President Bush doesn't ever want to have to make a horrible choice like that, so he's desperately trying to reform the region in order to prevent additional violence and bloodshed.

Kant’s Categorical Imperative says otherwise.

I never liked Kant.

Glen,

Speaking of recent Chinese illegal immigrants. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. There's been a huge influx of Fujianese migrants into New York (and maybe elsewhere) since the late 1980s and it completely destroyed the preexisting dynamic of the New York Chinese community. Huge amount of violence, bad social habits, poorly prepared students at school, gang activity, clannish behavior, massively depressed wages...you name it. The people moved in signed huge debt contracts with their smugglers, were kept in virtual slavery for years working off their debt. Many of the more established Chinese families left for the suburbs and left their old homes to be a slum of illiterate (in Chinese) people.

Getting back to the housing bubble, look at how all of the well-intentioned laws, which were supposed to make housing more accessible, have actually assured that housing prices continue to inflate out of reach of future generations. We have chosen to limit supply (through restrictive zoning laws, catering to NIMBYism, etc.), while stimulating demand (through tax breaks like Prop 13, mortgage interest deductibility, capital gains exclusion, etc.) We have further stimulated housing prices in some areas by misallocating public resources so that the quality of your child’s public school depends on your zip code.

In order to begin to reverse the misallocation of resources toward housing (and away from other forms of investment) we just need to remove some of this regulatory clutter and stop trying to engage in social engineering through the tax code.

Very well said, Glen.
Finally, something we can both agree upon wholeheartedly :-) .

I don’t get it. The solution to outsourcing is to import more low paying workers, thus straining our government resources further and risk destablizing society at large? ... Is it better to lower that living standard to the point where the US become as messed up and dysfunctional as the countries these people came from? Or to try to restrict the source, perhaps provide some aid and encouragement so that their country become less messed up and more functioning?

The fact is, that 12 million undocumented immigrants are already here. Because of our overly restrictive policy of *legal* immigration, we have created a huge black market, which doesn't do much good for anyone. What I am suggesting is that (1) assimilated immigrants are good for the US; and (2) if we expect people to assimilate, then we need to make it possible for them to do so legally. Don't complain about people failing to learn english when they could be fired, arrested or deported at any moment!

Perhaps we should offer citizenship to 500,000 or 1 million people per year--I don't know what the number is. All I'm saying is that the status quo is not working and the direction of change should be in favor of more liberalized legal immigration, not harsher enforcement of existing, unrealistic quotas.

As for providing aid to poor countries... sounds like another well-intentioned waste of taxpayer dollars. If we really want to help people in poor countries, then we should just let them compete with us freely. You should check out Oxfam's website to see how the diversion of US tax dollars to agribusiness has caused enormous suffering in poor countries by making agriculture infeasible in those countries. That's right, our government gives your tax dollars to US sugar and corn growers, which leads to artificially low prices for domestically grown sugar and corn, which means the US doesn't import these products, which means farmers in poor countries can't export these products. But this won't stop because the lobbyists have paid off the politicians and very few voters are looking at the big picture.

A lot of immigrants today just treat America as a place to make money and get some benefits, without truly merging into the American society at large.

that charge has been leveled at every immigrant group in our country’s history.

yeah, those nasty irish coming out post 1850 because of the potato famine and the california gold rush... and the scottish refugees after the enclosure of the highlands by landlords... they happen to have determined about 90% of the current american accent and culture. of course, land was for the taking back then, you only had to dispossess a few indigenous people and put them onto reservations, and do monetary deals with france and spain for vast lands under the veiled threat of war...

I agree that in a perfect world, every human being would start their life on an equal playing field, be given an education that maximizes his or her potential, and be compensated according to his or her merit. But we’re not there yet. We’re not even capable of doing so in the US.

Yes --charity begins at home.

In the meantime, we’ve created a higher living standard in the US. Is it better to lower that living standard to the point where the US become as messed up and dysfunctional as the countries these people came from? Or to try to restrict the source, perhaps provide some aid and encouragement so that their country become less messed up and more functioning?

No kidding. I'm tired of seeing MY standard of living become a casualty of "Operation Release Valve" for corruption & overpopulation-induced Third World poverty.

astrid Says:
I’m against market distortions in all its forms and I want people to pay the fair and total cost of any goods and services they receive. In my opinion, guest workers are a highly disruptive market distortion that subsidize the users of the cheap laborers while penalizing everybody else.

and where did you get that piece of neoclassical economics dogma from? serve the market at all costs, and define 'distortion' anyway you want, so long as you come out on top.

'market distortion' is just a theoretical piece of bollocks designed to benefit the mercantile class, no one else. Even most innocently, it's just represents a case at the failed 'scientisation' of economics, but it's been co-opted by right wing think tanks and right wing economics professors everywhere to push an agenda.

nothing to do with the migrant labour question, i just object to the attempted 'theorification of everything'...

Glen,

In general, I'm all for ending market distorting behavior. But I think that since giving up the status quo (America's good life) is not an acceptable solution, doing things to make the US less appealing for illegal immigrants is better than have them flood this country and overwhelm our living standard.

I don't see how a policing action (preventing the mass influx of law breakers or saying no to guest workers) is necessarily equivalent to government subsidies or like market distortions.

Glen,

Based on your last post, I believe our positions on immigration (and government subsidies/social engineering) are not that far apart after all. We may be arguing past one another.

I agree that in a perfect world, every human being would start their life on an equal playing field, be given an education that maximizes his or her potential, and be compensated according to his or her merit.

That's only one view of a 'perfect world'. See John Rawls 'original position' and 'justice as fairness'...

of course, it's a very teleological proposal...

Justice as Fairness

Harvard philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002 ) developed a conception of justice as fairness in his now classic work A Theory of Justice . Using elements of both Kantian and utilitarian philosophy, he has described a method for the moral evaluation of social and political institutions.

Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other.

In this original position , behind the veil of ignorance, what will the rational choice be for fundamental principles of society? The only safe principles will be fair principles, for you do not know whether you would suffer or benefit from the structure of any biased institutions. Indeed the safest principles will provide for the highest minimum standards of justice in the projected society.

To use a more mundane illustration, imagine that you had the task of determining how to divide a cake fairly among a group of individuals. What rule or method should govern the cutting? A simple one would be to let the person who does the cutting receive the last piece. This would lead that person to cut all pieces as equally as possible in order to receive the best remaining share. (Of course if the pieces were cut unequally, someone would get the largest share, but if you are the cutter, you can hardly rely on that piece being left over at the end.)

Speaking of recent Chinese illegal immigrants. Sorry, you don’t know what you’re talking about. There’s been a huge influx of Fujianese migrants into New York (and maybe elsewhere) since the late 1980s and it completely destroyed the preexisting dynamic of the New York Chinese community. Huge amount of violence, bad social habits, poorly prepared students at school, gang activity, clannish behavior, massively depressed wages…you name it. The people moved in signed huge debt contracts with their smugglers, were kept in virtual slavery for years working off their debt.

Gangsters, criminals, loan sharks and slave traders should be prosecuted and/or deported. Nothing in my earlier posts was intended to suggest otherwise. As for "bad social habits" and "poorly prepared students at school" how is this different from the rest of the US population? Seriously, though, most first generation immigrants are a little rough around the edges. Most of their kids, at a minimum, will learn english and have the ability to hold down some kind of a normal job.

In any case, one of the reasons I advocate a more liberalized immigration policy is so that we can do something about the very problems of exploitation which you have cited.

randy h said:
This is what kills me when reading a typical FAB “you can get medical ins. for only $56/month” rant.

If you go back through FAB’s comments, you’ll find that this is the same fount of knowledge which declared that public schools in Mill Valley are dangerous because of too many black people, professional women are the enemy of proper families, middle aged men can copulate with over a hundred women while simultaneously declaring that younger women are increasingly sluts, only conservatives have a greater than middle school science education, and that poor folks shouldn’t have babies.

oh, so you noticed as well? FAB's other quantitative analyses leave something to be desired at times as well. When challenged, he's often found to blow out costs by 10x to suit, or just pluck figures from the air. Must be something to do with being a 'former' RE hack -- or born with a silver spoon...

DS,

Sorry. I work largely from a neo-classical framework. I don't really like government involvement except in case of obvious market failure or for communal goods. I do take utility into mind rather than dollars, so I'm nowhere near being a complete market fundamentalist.

Glen,

I'm suggesting recent illegal immigrants are usually not top drawer stuff. They're not the best and brightest of their country, just the most desperate and conveniently connected ones. The smartest people in China and many other developing nations now try to do well at school and get to the US by legal means. Let's work harder to bring those people in.

I don’t see how a policing action (preventing the mass influx of law breakers or saying no to guest workers) is necessarily equivalent to government subsidies or like market distortions.

really, this whole 'market distortion' thing is a nonsense. i decided to suppress a few other observations concerning rightwing ideological brainwashing designed to serve the interests of mercantilists... 'market distortions' as an underlying rationale for social action (or inaction) is a discourse...

DS,
To bring Rawls into the present discussion, imagine that you are going to be plopped down into a random country. But before you are dropped in, you get to unilaterally determine US immigration policy. What kind of system would you adopt for the US? Keep in mind that if you adopt a complete, unrestricted open border, then you are dropped in a bad country, then you elect to immigrate to the US, you will soon be followed by a whole bunch of others (though perhaps not 3-4 billion).

Sorry. I work largely from a neo-classical framework. I don’t really like government involvement except in case of obvious market failure or for communal goods. I do take utility into mind rather than dollars, so I’m nowhere near being a complete market fundamentalist.

yeah, it's called brainwashing and 'scientistic' unreflexive modernism, a failed experiment if ever there was one. every bit as valid as marx's attempts to construct the 'laws of social history'.

oh 'utility', very good, it's not just dollars. human rights don't come into the picture at all, of course, a mere 'externality', my dear, how are my stock options looking today?

I don’t really like government involvement except in case of obvious market failure or for communal goods.

and when does that happen, exactly? all the time? half the time? whenever person A, B or C defines it to happen? there could be more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy...

DS,
To bring Rawls into the present discussion, imagine that you are going to be plopped down into a random country. But before you are dropped in, you get to unilaterally determine US immigration policy. What kind of system would you adopt for the US? Keep in mind that if you adopt a complete, unrestricted open border, then you are dropped in a bad country, then you elect to immigrate to the US, you will soon be followed by a whole bunch of others (though perhaps not 3-4 billion).

yeah, like the irish... nobody wants that...

i'm not even getting into the 'illegal migrant labourer' question, i've always lived in sea-locked countries ;)

obviously the concept of borders and the definition of the 'nation-state' have firmed up in the last century or so...

i'm interested to draw parallels, as have others, of the allowability of historical migration patterns vs present-day ones, and the social change that they have brought about.

but there are very real questions about the 'gatekeeper' role, desirables and undesirables, and so on. australia actually has a lot of undesirables who came in legally, and the problems are really beginning to surface. There are a lot of lessons of attempted multi-culturalism, and they're not all touchy-feely wonderful ones -- some of the policies of the 80s were way too liberal (in the sense of open) and naive...

I’m suggesting recent illegal immigrants are usually not top drawer stuff. They’re not the best and brightest of their country, just the most desperate and conveniently connected ones. The smartest people in China and many other developing nations now try to do well at school and get to the US by legal means. Let’s work harder to bring those people in.

I agree that we need all the smart, educated immigrants we can get. We should feel lucky that many of the world's best and brightest still see the US as a desirable destination.

But I think it is hard to generalize about "illegal" immigrants because we presently allow so few legal immigrants. Some "illegal" immigrants are ambitious and entrepeneurial, others are "not top drawer stuff." As a taxpayer, I think we should be trying to recruit as many young, healthy, hard-working people as we can for our team. To the extent we can determine in advance who is a criminal or otherwise a net drain on society, perhaps I could accept a policy excluding such people. But it would be a big mistake to assume that anyone who does not currently have legal status under our present restrictive immigration policies is automatically a net drain. And to the extent that they *are* a net drain, it is often because we choose to provide an overly generous welfare state to all comers.

Glen, Astrid,

I am not troubled by the fact that many of the recent immigrants are not the "best and brightest" of their home countries. Over the years, America has done just fine with the great unwashed.

My own ancestors, the group that came over on the Mayflower, were lunatics, members of a lunatic fringe religious sect, the 17th Century equivalent of Hare Krishnas. My other ancestors (as best as I can tell, it is hard to trace the ancestral heritage due to centuries of inbreeding) were French, German, Irish, Scandinavian, and Scots-Irish peasants who came over becaue it was too hard to eke out a living from the depleted soil of the old country.

Virtually all Americans can trace their roots to the lowest of the low. Until recently, the best and brightest -- in terms of education, wealth, or accomplishment -- almost never emigrated here. Yet as a country, we've done just fine. The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the illegal alien dishwashers of today will be the astronauts and engineers of tomorrow.

It is certainly great to get the best and brightest whenever we can snare one. But even the huddled masses will benefit us in the future. I just think that we cannot overlook the massive costs they involve in the present. I don't mind bearing the current costs but I don't want them to grow any bigger than they already have.

Gangsters, criminals, loan sharks and slave traders should be prosecuted and/or deported.

They should certainly be prosecuted, just as any criminal should be, regardless of ethnicity. There's a question of once you've extended citizenship, do you have the right to take it away? You should have done all your due diligence by then...

there was a populist party here called 'one nation' which was very anti-elite and grassroots based which polled reasonably well -- they were seen as ultra-right wing, but they were pretty well 'nationalist socialists', as were the nazi party and the KKK, where right meets left. they had very simple policies and weren't the sharpest political tools in the shed, but one original stance was that 'any [recent] immigrant who commits a crime should be deported' -- people used to throw water bombs full of urine at them on their way into public meetings... however, the right-wing PM john howard partly succeeded by co-opting their policies in a slightly attenuated and hidden form to steal the votes back...

The thing that all immigrants to America have in common is their attitude. They are all willing to work hard, take risks, and basically get off their rear ends and DO SOMETHING in order to create a better life for themselves. This is a rare quality; lots of people, if not most people, are content to sit on their tails and take whatever life dishes out to them.

An immigrant may be an illiterate, unskilled peasant in his home country, but if he's got the (pardon the expression) balls to get accross the border, I think we can use him.

I agree with your point about unskilled immigrants and future generations of same. As for the present cost, I think it is largely (as I pointed out earlier) a function of our dysfunctional system of tax redistribution. I am certainly not opposed to providing emergency health care and public education for immigrants, but I think the costs of these services could be reduced greatly through deregulation.

I am certainly not opposed to providing emergency health care and public education for immigrants, but I think the costs of these services could be reduced greatly through deregulation.

deregulation, hmm. the american health industry is already one of the most deregulated in the world. however, it costs approximately twice as much to run it as most 'social-ised medicine' countries which further provide a guarantee of affordable access to health care. i.e. the US healthcare system, left in the 'free market', is twice as inefficient as the public healthcare systems which guarantee a universal outcome of affordable quality healthcare. For this reason, the US system has been ranked 37th in the world for the quality of healthcare provided. 'the best [technical] healthcare in the world, for those who can afford it'. at twice the overall cost, due to the HMO/health insurers/doctors/big pharma gouging you for a living and deciding mostly what NOT to pay for...

Gangsters, criminals, loan sharks and slave traders should be prosecuted and/or deported.

They should certainly be prosecuted, just as any criminal should be, regardless of ethnicity. There’s a question of once you’ve extended citizenship, do you have the right to take it away? You should have done all your due diligence by then…

there was a populist party here called ‘one nation’ which was very anti-elite and grassroots based which polled reasonably well — they were seen as ultra-right wing, but they were pretty well ‘nationalist social-ists’, as were the nazi party and the KKK, where right meets left. they had very simple policies and weren’t the sharpest political tools in the shed, but one original stance was that ‘any [recent] immigrant who commits a crime should be deported’ — people used to throw water bombs full of urine at them on their way into public meetings… however, the right-wing PM john howard partly succeeded by co-opting their policies in a slightly attenuated and hidden form to steal the votes back…

'deregulation' is another neoclassical rightwing thinktank weasel word which is code for 'please let me make even more money for myself without scrutiny or oversight or a governing role to guarantee socially acceptable outcomes'.

DS said:
There’s a question of once you’ve extended citizenship, do you have the right to take it away? You should have done all your due diligence by then…

I wasn't talking about deporting people who had already achieved citizenship. I was talking about deporting people who commit crimes in the US, who are not yet citizens. If they are already citizens, then they should be prosecuted under US law, of course.

‘deregulation’ is another neoclassical rightwing thinktank weasel word which is code for ‘please let me make even more money for myself without scrutiny or oversight or a governing role to guarantee socially acceptable outcomes’.

DS: you sound like a socialist. I have never seen a socialist government successfully "guarantee socially acceptable outcomes." It can't be done.

Can someone unlock my last post? I don't think it contained anything offensive...