(10-24-2018 04:31 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:56 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-24-2018 03:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My guess is that legalizing illegal immigrants and bringing them into the light would result in them lying taxes. Same way that legalizing weed results in people buying it legally as opposed to continuing to use their dealer.

The concepts are not exactly parallel. Proponents of "legalizing illegal immigrants" usually claim that it refers mainly to amnesty for those already here, not to removing limits on future immigration. "Legalizing marijuana", on the other hand, clearly refers to removing most limits on future use as well.

Do you advocate legalizing all future immigration?
If not:
- what restrictions should there be on future immigration?
- what penalties should be imposed for violating those restrictions? (obviously you can't have restrictions if you don't have penalties)
- once those future violations inevitably happen, what would be the rationale for not giving them the same amnesty that is currently advocated for past violations?

My impression is that the proponents of marijuana "legalization" are generally fairly honest about what types of regulations they would put in place -- e.g. excise taxes (that's a big one), age restrictions for buyers, licensing requirements for sellers, and fines for violating those rules. In contrast, the proponents of "legalizing illegal immigration" often seem to be deliberately dishonest about what limits they would put in place. That failure, more than anything, is why they have such a hard time achieving support.

I’m only comparing the actions post-legalization. I don’t see any reason why someone granted amnesty would stay in the shadows the same way there’s no reason a person who smokes weed would stay in the shadows if it was legalized.

I think that's right. The difference is that with marijuana legalization, creating an expectation that future use will not be punished is explicitly the point, whereas with immigration, the intent of legalization proponents regarding future immigration is unclear, which makes the advocacy hard to assess.

It would seem that the policy options are, in general terms:
(a) No amnesty for past violators + strict enforcement going forward.
--> This is the policy that most of the world follows.

(b) No amnesty for past violators + lax enforcement going forward.
--> This has been the unique U.S. approach for the decades. It is the worst or second-worst possible policy.

© Amnesty for past violators + strict enforcement going forward; or

(d) Amnesty for past violators + lax enforcement going forward.

On the right:
- some folks advocate (a), which would be a departure for the U.S. but at least has the virtue of aligning well with the rest of the world.
- others (going back decades) advocate ©.

On the left:
- options (a) and (b) are explicitly rejected.
- option © is at least implicitly rejected.
- option (d), while not openly endorsed, does not seem to be met with any qualms.

What, then, should a reasonable person conclude that the left is advocating?