Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

sactowndog

Illegal Immigration a Felony?

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Per my previous two posts, hopefully that clarifies there were very real differences between Obama and Trump and clearly the zero tolerance resulted in a massive spike of children, including babies, being separated from parents.  Pick whatever article you like or just google it and educate yourself, but don't claim there are the same.  They aren't.

Dude, spin it however you want.

It's a 30% / 100% difference.

Same shit, harsher policy no matter what context you want to pull out.

 

What you seem to be denying is the fact that families have been separated before. Family detentions happened before. Kid camps were there before.

 

The articles state it. The numbers just aren't there. Catch and release and selective prosecution is just as worse. It's easy to understand why Trump admin wanted to put in harsher policies to get some determent, because the way things are now and have been...just isn't working.

 

 

 

 

All is well, For Rice is gone.                  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BestintheWest said:

Dude, spin it however you want.

It's a 30% / 100% difference.

Same shit, harsher policy no matter what context you want to pull out.

 

What you seem to be denying is the fact that families have been separated before. Family detentions happened before. Kid camps were there before.

 

The articles state it. The numbers just aren't there. Catch and release and selective prosecution is just as worse. It's easy to understand why Trump admin wanted to put in harsher policies to get some determent, because the way things are now and have been...just isn't working.

 

 

 

 

Yeap, i tried to make it as simple as possible.  No one said it wasn't happening before.  Here it is again, in plain words below.  And if the numbers just aren't there, where do you get 30% from.  My guess is it was a tiny fraction of that.  Either way, separation was the exception before because they made the conscious decision to keep families together.  It was the rule after with Trump because they made the conscious decision to implement zero tolerance, which turned out to be a disaster.  I'll take the former over the latter policy wise and with a clean conscious.  In an ideal world, 0% would have been the best percentage.  Regardless, my side won the short term battle as Trump was literally forced to cave and sign an EO under pressure from his base.  Long term, i have no idea what is going to happen but as long as Trump is president i am not optimistic for an agreement.

And i would love to hear how a catch and release policy was worse for babies or children being yanked from their parents arms with zero tolerance.  Well scratch that, i don't need to hear.  If it kept a family together it wasn't.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-trump-child-separation-meme/

The administration of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced a new “zero tolerance” immigration policy in April 2018. Whereas previously, those found crossing the border into United States illegally were largely subjected to administrative proceedings, before being deported, the zero tolerance policy instructed border agencies and immigration courts to arrest immigrants for violating U.S. immigration laws, and subject them to criminal trial, prosecution and incarceration, before their eventual deportation. 

One necessary and foreseen consequence of this new policy was that adults who crossed the border from Mexico into the U.S. along with their children would have their children taken away from them while they were detained, pending criminal trial, and during their period of incarceration. 

 

Criminal prosecution for improperly crossing into the United States was the exception under the Obama administration, whose policy largely limited that approach to known criminals and repeat offenders. Under the “zero tolerance” policy implemented by Trump and Sessions, criminal prosecution for any unauthorized border crossing is the rule rather than the exception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Yeap, i tried to make it as simple as possible.  No one said it wasn't happening before.  Here it is again, in plain words below.  And if the numbers just aren't there, where do you get 30% from.  My guess is it was a tiny fraction of that.  Either way, separation was the exception before because they made the conscious decision to keep families together.  It was the rule after with Trump because they made the conscious decision to implement zero tolerance, which turned out to be a disaster.  I'll take the former over the latter policy wise and with a clean conscious.  In an ideal world, 0% would have been the best percentage.  Regardless, my side won the short term battle as Trump was literally forced to cave and sign an EO under pressure from his base.  Long term, i have no idea what is going to happen but as long as Trump is president i am not optimistic for an agreement.

And i would love to hear how a catch and release policy was worse for babies or children being yanked from their parents arms.  

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-trump-child-separation-meme/

The administration of President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced a new “zero tolerance” immigration policy in April 2018. Whereas previously, those found crossing the border into United States illegally were largely subjected to administrative proceedings, before being deported, the zero tolerance policy instructed border agencies and immigration courts to arrest immigrants for violating U.S. immigration laws, and subject them to criminal trial, prosecution and incarceration, before their eventual deportation. 

One necessary and foreseen consequence of this new policy was that adults who crossed the border from Mexico into the U.S. along with their children would have their children taken away from them while they were detained, pending criminal trial, and during their period of incarceration. 

 

Criminal prosecution for improperly crossing into the United States was the exception under the Obama administration, whose policy largely limited that approach to known criminals and repeat offenders. Under the “zero tolerance” policy implemented by Trump and Sessions, criminal prosecution for any unauthorized border crossing is the rule rather than the exception. 

It Obama would have gotten the law changed, none of this would have happend

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pokebball said:

It Obama would have gotten the law changed, none of this would have happend

If congressional Republicans could pass any laws about immigration this would never have happened.  

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pokebball said:

It Obama would have gotten the law changed, none of this would have happend

Correct, too bad we can't go back to 2008 and change that.  Obama used his political capital to pass health care and ensure affordable health care to those that couldn't get it, to force companies to cover pre-existing conditions, to force insurance companies to have basic plans that actually covered a minimum set of requirements.  It also cost him the House and Senate for the majority of his presidency.  In his first year and a half, the major piece of legislation that has gone thru under Trump with a Republican controlled Congress is tax cuts aimed primarily at the rich with no way to pay for them.  We'll see what he chooses to focus on after midterms.  In my opinion, Trump should have insisted on spending cuts to offset tax cuts and loss of revenue.  But he didn't.  And now there is really no realistic plan at getting immigration passed in both House and Senate.  Too many turf battles.  Republicans by themselves can't unite behind anything, and then they still have to work with Democrats who aren't going to do them any favors.  If only we had a president that could help negotiate legislation, and not just giving money back with no plan to pay for.  I think Bush could have got it done.  This guy, i don't see it.

At the end of the day, i am pro immigration.  If we are going to use illegals to make money for our businesses and drive down costs, then we'll just have to live with their kids born here being citizens for now.  Not ideal for the parents, but it's where we are.  I say provide a path for them to pay taxes without worrying about deportation instead of pretending they aren't here.  And pass a stand alone DACA bill.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Correct, too bad we can't go back to 2008 and change that.  Obama used his political capital to pass health care and ensure affordable health care to those that couldn't get it, to force companies to cover pre-existing conditions, to force insurance companies to have basic plans that actually covered a minimum set of requirements.  It also cost him the House and Senate for the majority of his presidency.  In his first year and a half, the major piece of legislation that has gone thru under Trump with a Republican controlled Congress is tax cuts aimed primarily at the rich with no way to pay for them.  We'll see what he chooses to focus on after midterms.  In my opinion, Trump should have insisted on spending cuts to offset tax cuts and loss of revenue.  But he didn't.  And now there is really no realistic plan at getting immigration passed in both House and Senate.  Too many turf battles.  Republicans by themselves can't unite behind anything, and then they still have to work with Democrats who aren't going to do them any favors.  If only we had a president that could help negotiate legislation, and not just giving money back with no plan to pay for.  I think Bush could have got it done.  This guy, i don't see it.

At the end of the day, i am pro immigration.  If we are going to use illegals to make money for our businesses and drive down costs, then we'll just have to live with their kids born here being citizens for now.  Not ideal for the parents, but it's where we are.  I say provide a path for them to pay taxes without worrying about deportation instead of pretending they aren't here.  

 

Many of us now know a little bit more as to why neither party has tried to fix immigration.  Both sides say they want to fix it, neither side wants to face the tough decisions and bad press that it takes to make it so.

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, pokebball said:

Many of us now know a little bit more as to why neither party has tried to fix immigration.  Both sides say they want to fix it, neither side wants to face the tough decisions and bad press that it takes to make it so.

Meh, it didn't happen with Obama with a Democrat controlled Congress,  it had zero chance with Obama and a Republican controlled Congress, and it isn't happening with Trump and a Republican controlled Congress.  We can blame whoever we want.  Right now Republicans are in control and can't even agree among themselves, much less work with Democrats.  Maybe midterms will bring in new blood and an ability to work constructively more than this group of yahoos.  Realistically we are probably going to have to wait for a new president that can use his or her power to twist arms and force compromises on both sides of the aisle.  Really difficult for me to see Trump being that leader.  I think his insistence, and expectation from his hard core following, of funding for his dream wall is basically a non starter.  Trump won't accept anything without funds, and Democrats aren't going to give it to him.  So, no immigration reform for near future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Meh, it didn't happen with Obama with a Democrat controlled Congress,  it had zero chance with Obama and a Republican controlled Congress, and it isn't happening with Trump and a Republican controlled Congress.  We can blame whoever we want.  Right now Republicans are in control and can't even agree among themselves, much less work with Democrats.  Maybe midterms will bring in new blood and an ability to work constructively more than this group of yahoos.  Realistically we are probably going to have to wait for a new president that can use his or her power to twist arms and force compromises on both sides of the aisle.  Really difficult for me to see Trump being that leader.  I think his insistence, and expectation from his hard core following, of funding for his dream wall is basically a non starter.  Trump won't accept anything without funds, and Democrats aren't going to give it to him.  

Maybe this transparency is exactly what we need to get it changed

The World Needs More Cowboys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Sigh.  

Well, is owning guns victimless?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alum93 said:

Meh, it didn't happen with Obama with a Democrat controlled Congress,  it had zero chance with Obama and a Republican controlled Congress, and it isn't happening with Trump and a Republican controlled Congress.  We can blame whoever we want.  Right now Republicans are in control and can't even agree among themselves, much less work with Democrats.  Maybe midterms will bring in new blood and an ability to work constructively more than this group of yahoos.  Realistically we are probably going to have to wait for a new president that can use his or her power to twist arms and force compromises on both sides of the aisle.  Really difficult for me to see Trump being that leader.  I think his insistence, and expectation from his hard core following, of funding for his dream wall is basically a non starter.  Trump won't accept anything without funds, and Democrats aren't going to give it to him.  So, no immigration reform for near future.  

You will never blame Obama who campaigned on and promised to pass immigration reform his first year.   A year when his party had total control of the house and senate and had promised to introduce a bill during his campaign first year.

Not to mention Obama defeated Bush's immigration bill combining with the far right to stick on a poison pill amendment in 2007 so he could run on the issue in 2008.

Instead I am sure it is the republicans fault right?  The republicans who with just a couple of democratic votes could have passed immigration reform in 2005 or 2007 or right now.  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pokebball said:

A couple of thoughts.

First, I read a very good article probably 20yrs ago that spoke to the world wide aging demographics compared to the taxpaying demographics.  Information was projected for the 50yrs from that point forward.  It showed a crises in some parts of the world, with Europe being impacted the most.  Obviously the aging populations would strain the economies with higher demands of benefits while the number of taxpayers increasingly declined.  Contributing to this decline in taxpayers were societal and cultural shifts in having fewer children, the rise in the rates of abortion, etc.  Immigration was a factor in the dynamic, either increasing or decreasing change in taxpayer levels.  Europe's inflow of immigrants at the time of this article would not be enough to provide for the necessary economies to support the aging demographic there.  The US rate of inflow of immigrants would sustain our economy for awhile.  If my memory serves me, I'm thinking it was 40yrs, so we're now at the 20yr mark.  In other words, our birthrate wasn't high enough to sustain our economies.  Inflow immigration is necessary to sustain it.

The second thought, particularly around undocumented / illegal immigrants, is that their contribution in taxes isn't normally aligned with their demand on govt benefits.  For example, I hear often about the employment taxes being withheld from their pay and the fact often they don't ever receive SS benefits.  While I agree with that, this 7.65% withheld from their pay isn't revenue to the local govts and schools districts where they are receiving benefits.  That is very problematic to the local govts, school districts, healthcare services, etc.

True about local governments but they pay property tax either directly or indirectly via rent and they pay sales taxes.   Most of the ways local governments fund themselves they pay.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yes if owned legally.

And unregistered transfers?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Against the law?

Victimless?

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, happycamper said:

Victimless?

yes

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, happycamper said:

Victimless?

Yes.  Owning a gun is A.  Not a crime.  and B. victimless.  Not to mention a constitutional right.

Crossing the border with a child makes the child a victim the majority of the time.  Apples to submarines. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

Yes.  Owning a gun is A.  Not a crime.  and B. victimless.  Not to mention a constitutional right.

Crossing the boarder with a child makes the child a victim the majority of the time.  Apples to submarines. 

the only thing that makes the child a victim is the effect from criminalizing the act of crossing the border itself. this is a similar argument that narcs make when they argue smoking pot is a victimless crime, IMO.

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smltwnrckr said:

the only thing that makes the child a victim is the effect from criminalizing the act of crossing the border itself. this is a similar argument that narcs make when they argue smoking pot is a victimless crime, IMO.

Come on now every country criminalizes crossing the border illegally.  The only difference is for decades we haven't enforced our laws making children victims.  If we deported everyone who enters the country illegally just like every other industrialized country in the world.  The children would not be victims.

Second, we can't have open borders.  If we did within a year we would have a billion people in this country and our government would collapse.  Everyone in South and Central America would be walking north to the promised land.

Wake up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bluerules009 said:

Come on now every country criminalizes crossing the border illegally.  The only difference is for decades we haven't enforced our laws making children victims.  If we deported everyone who enters the country illegally just like every other industrialized country in the world.  The children would not be victims.

Second, we can't have open borders.  If we did within a year we would have a billion people in this country and our government would collapse.  Everyone in South and Central America would be walking north to the promised land.

Wake up.

there's a difference between making something illegal and criminalizing it. 

Planning is an exercise of power, and in a modern state much real power is suffused with boredom. The agents of planning are usually boring; the planning process is boring; the implementation of plans is always boring. In a democracy boredom works for bureaucracies and corporations as smell works for skunk. It keeps danger away. Power does not have to be exercised behind the scenes. It can be open. The audience is asleep. The modern world is forged amidst our inattention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...