Hi, Shrewd!        Login  
Shrewd'm.com 
A merry & shrewd investing community
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd
Search
Shrewd'm.com Merry shrewd investors
Search
Best Of PoliticsBest OfAll BoardsThe Shrewd’m WeeklyLearn to InvestHow to Become Shrewd


The week's question
In December 2024, in the thread "Re: BRK: Why Not XOM?", BreckHutHigh asked the members: "What about the long road trips with kids?" This week it is put to everyone again. The button below opens the small thread re-asking it - read what others have said so far, then give your own answer as an ordinary reply.
Answer this questionContinue to Shrewd'mThis note won't appear again
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (57) |
Author: albaby1 SILVER
SHREWD
  😊 😞

Number: of 84361 
Subject: Re: The King of ‘Due Process”
Date: 03/31/25 10:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
No. of Recommendations: 12
I am not advocating for deporting illegal immigrants such as the ones you describe. I have posted about this before, that illegals such as you describe could apply for some sort of legal status that allows them to remain here unless and until they commit a serious crime.

Fair enough, but that's not what the federal law is today. Past administrations have tried to create a de facto system like that, by de-prioritizing the deportation of anyone who's been here a while and hasn't committed any crimes (apart from those related to their immigration status) - but even that was imperfect, and it's mostly been stripped away by the current Administration.

That's why sanctuary policies exist - as a way for local governments to try to create the policy you describe above. If everyone coming into contact with the police (or government agencies in general) gets turned over to ICE, then they all face the risk (or likelihood) of deportation. So local governments set limits on how much they will cooperate with ICE, so that the illegal immigrants that you agree should not be deported won't be. Because the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants are the sort that you agree should be allowed to stay, sanctuary policies are typically set so that most government folks don't voluntarily enforce the federal immigration laws.

It's a kludge. Sanctuary cities and states don't control federal immigration policy, so they adopt a flawed and imperfect mechanism to try to keep the ones I described from being deported. Since the GOP fiercely rejects your position (that the immigrants I described should be allowed to obtain some sort of legal status), it's unlikely that anything better will get adopted at the federal level. So local governments that adjudge that widespread deportation of the immigrants I describe would be terrible for their communities end up implementing sanctuary policies.

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!
Print the post
Members reply directly to albaby1 here — and replies get answered. Reading is free; so is joining the conversation. Join Shrewd'm »
This community has written 84,309 posts about US Policy. The article-length ones it recommended most:
It's going to get worse · 33 recs · 2025
G’day Donny · 30 recs · 2026
Old Related Story · 28 recs · 2026
HCR is a national treasure · 27 recs · 2025
Fascism in America · 27 recs · 2025
Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (57) |


Announcements
US Policy FAQ
Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

Best Of Politics | Best Of | Favourites & Replies | All Boards | Followed Shrewds | Open Questions | Moving a community