Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you believe that America has a fundamental right to enforce its immigration laws, and that enforcement of those laws is permissible provided that such enforcement occurs within whatever bounds you deem to be humane, and your only objection to these activities is their real or potential impact on the civil rights of American citizens?
Pretty obviously. In fact, you defined a pretty good standard with the exception of the snark about what the OP deems humane - not deporting to an overcrowded prison in a 3rd country can’t be that hard to agree on. All evidenced by the fact that higher deportation numbers during Obama created no uproar. You think it’s coz Obama was handsome or smtg?
You're telling me it's obvious but I still don't think that you'd agree with the statement that: "your only objection to these activities is their real or potential impact on the civil rights of American citizens." If the infrastructure was in place to ensure each of these cases was thoroughly reviewed (for example, to address refugee claimant status), would you object to the deportation of absolutely all foreign nationals illegally residing in the United States? I have a hunch that the answer is no, and even if it were yes, I don't think it's obvious from the language used in this thread that attitudes towards this issue are stemming from a Ron Paul style concern over the fate of the American Republic and its civil liberties. From the language used, it seems far more likely that these people see immigration law as basically illegitimate, and that their policy position is whatever enables the largest number of illegal residents to remain in the country.
> In fact, you defined a pretty good standard with the exception of the snark about what the OP deems humane
You're reading into the comment. His own standard of what he deems humane would obviously be a prerequisite for him to deem the practices acceptable. Given the inane comment you made about another one of my comments being "plainly illogical" I would request that you keep to the issues and stop tone policing.
> - not deporting to an overcrowded prison in a 3rd country can’t be that hard to agree on.
Evidently not. It's not the most effective policy (which would be targeting employers), but if you don't imprison repeat offenders, the incentive will always be there to try again. For as many of the sob stories you're seeing about a father of six getting deported after working diligently for 30 years as an unlicensed carpenter, there are a dozen guys getting caught at the Home Deport parking lot who will be back in the country within the year. Deportation to these people is an inconvenience, not a Greek tragedy, and the only way you could really dissuade them from it would be incarcerating them so that the penalty is some period where they know they aren't going to have any earnings.
> All evidenced by the fact that higher deportation numbers during Obama created no uproar. You think it’s coz Obama was handsome or smtg?
Obama's higher deportation numbers were largely the result of changes to the definition of what constituted a deportation.