Given that there are no details on punishment for illegal immigration, I feel it’s necessary to discuss it further. The rest of this post is about that.
Here’s why I can’t necessarily support deportation after two years. Do they have some place to return to? I mean, it’s not really our business, and it’s debatable whether the Constitution protects them since the only reason it could is because they’re on U.S. soil and afforded rights of those on U.S. soil but stepped foot on U.S. soil illegally and of their own volition unless as a dependent and with the person that takes care of them, but still we should check to see whether we’re sending them to a place that is going to be bad for them.
We need to assess the appropriate punishment for illegal immigration, and I don’t think we’ve done that. For every crime, there’s extensive study on how many years someone should get in jail, for murder, for robbery, and other crimes, or probation as well as the manner in which the crime was committed, the defendant’s intent, etc. There are studies in law schools across this country and several countries that debate topics of intent, premeditation, mental state, severity of the crime, and other issues and probation, time served, minimum security versus maximum security, level of remorse, how one pleads, etc.
However, there seems to be none of that when assessing punishment for illegal immigration.
You can’t claim someone should be tried in your courts because the crime happened here and also claim the defendant doesn’t get the rights afforded by the Constitution.