The "We can't deport them, what about the children" garbage.

[Tigerace117]

Try reading for a change.

Yeah, you should. You might learn something

 

[Mason66]

Look at you, mr "has a couple million pesos to spend on protection every so often". You don't think the fact that you are American might have something to do with that?

Not at all. If you have money in a small town like this you are a target.

Big cities are very different.

Did you know there are more new cars sold in the capital than there are babies born each year?

In case you don't know, we don't have no money down financing or anything like that. Our loans are around 30% annually for a car and the interest rate on my credit card is $70% annually.

People that work hard can make it. The people that don't bother can take off to the US and live in the shadows. We don't care, you can have all the losers.

Who has preconceived notions about Mexico, me or you?

 

[Mason66]

Look at you, mr "has a couple million pesos to spend on protection every so often". You don't think the fact that you are American might have something to do with that?

Where did I say, every so often?

 

[woodsman]

Yeah. Seriously.


There's the DREAM Act. There's the policy of only deporting "violent" illegals. There are sanctuary city policies. There is non-enforcement where one is presented with a 16 year old who only knows English and the fact that deporting them to a country they were taken from when they were only 1 year old seems rather pointlessly cruel, especially when they aren't responsible for their presence here.

There are all sorts aspects to immigration policy. You didn't mention a single one of them. You just used a bunch of law and order "tough on crime" talk, which I called empty because you didn't actually identify the particular parts of immigration policy you want changed, what you want them changed to, nor did you make any particular argument on why this is the optimal outcome beyond, again, law for law's sake.

The only policy position I detect in your OP is the sort of posturing common to the right that involves a general disdain for the very concepts of empathy and pragmatism.

Curious, If you commit a crime as a citizen of the US do you get an automatic get out of jail free card because you have children? There may be adjustments with punishment in certain cases, but No. Those children ether stay with extended family or unfortunately end up in the Foster care system.

Comparison: If you make bad choices and don’t pay your rent or mortgage will the fact that you have children sway the courts to let you stay in the property indefinitely, monies free?

Lets get real, if you are a long term illegal immigrant living in the US and don’t have a trailing/continuing criminal record you have little chance of being deported. If you don’t hire an immigration attorney to smooth and side step the process, well that’s on you, more bad choices.To cry victim hood for a child in there late teens when they had all those years to sort it out is nonsense.

Let’s also be factual, the dream act goes directly in the face of federal laws, sanctuary cities are also breaking federal laws with that practice.

 

[Gaius46]

No, that means they are losers and it is easier to make it in the US.

Here in Mexico you actually have to work hard to get anywhere.

So you're suggesting you don't have to work hard here? You're suggesting that Americans are losers who couldn't make it anywhere else?

 

[Gaius46]

Curious, If you commit a crime as a citizen of the US do you get an automatic get out of jail free card because you have children? There may be adjustments with punishment in certain cases, but No. Those children ether stay with extended family or unfortunately end up in the Foster care system.

Comparison: If you make bad choices and don’t pay your rent or mortgage will the fact that you have children sway the courts to let you stay in the property indefinitely, monies free?

Lets get real, if you are a long term illegal immigrant living in the US and don’t have a trailing/continuing criminal record you have little chance of being deported. If you don’t hire an immigration attorney to smooth and side step the process, well that’s on you, more bad choices.To cry victim hood for a child in there late teens when they had all those years to sort it out is nonsense.

Let’s also be factual, the dream act goes directly in the face of federal laws, sanctuary cities are also breaking federal laws with that practice.

What Federal law do sanctuary cities violate?

 

[Tigerace117]

Not at all. If you have money in a small town like this you are a target.

Big cities are very different.

Did you know there are more new cars sold in the capital than there are babies born each year?

In case you don't know, we don't have no money down financing or anything like that. Our loans are around 30% annually for a car and the interest rate on my credit card is $70% annually.


People that work hard can make it. The people that don't bother can take off to the US and live in the shadows. We don't care, you can have all the losers.



Who has preconceived notions about Mexico, me or you?

You, clearly, seeing as you think people who literally risk everything to give their family a better life are "losers"

 

[Mason66]

So you're suggesting you don't have to work hard here? You're suggesting that Americans are losers who couldn't make it anywhere else?

Try reading what I said.

The border crossers are losers. They are the worst of the poor that don't want to do anything for themselves.

 

[Mason66]

You, clearly, seeing as you think people who literally risk everything to give their family a better life are "losers"

They absolutely are.

They risk everything because the self preservation gene has been removed somehow from the Mexicans. That is why you see them risk their kids lives crossing the border.

 

[Gaius46]

Try reading what I said.

The border crossers are losers. They are the worst of the poor that don't want to do anything for themselves.

I did read what you said.

You said

No, that means they are losers and it is easier to make it in the US.

Here in Mexico you actually have to work hard to get anywhere.

Granted you are speaking about Mexicans but the statements "it is easier to make it in the US." and "Here in Mexico you actually have to work hard to get anywhere." are general and as written would apply to Americans as well.

 

[Mason66]

I did read what you said.

You said



Granted you are speaking about Mexicans but the statement is a general one and as written would apply to Americans as well.

I was specifically speaking of the border crossers.

Like I said, if they put the same amount of effort here that they do to cross and live like they live, they would be very well, but they don't.

As an example. I am American living here. Actually I have dual citizenship.

My girlfriends mother had a stroke so she is now being cared for in a private facility.

The lady that runs that runs that facility told me I should take my girlfriend back to the US and marry her so she can get all kinds of benefits that Mexico does not have.

That is how Mexicans think. Our thought was that she is not from the US and therefore not entitled to any monies the US might have.

 

[Tigerace117]

They absolutely are.

They risk everything because the self preservation gene has been removed somehow from the Mexicans. That is why you see them risk their kids lives crossing the border.

I know who I consider the real losers, and it's not the poor people who try to make a better life for their families.

Very easy for an American to say, especially seeing as your average American is much better off than a lot of these people. Oh, and doesn't have to worry about getting their head cut off

 

[radcen]

Well, what about the children?

I get they are the innocent party involved, but how is the USA's problem for enforcing our laws that a "family get's broken up"? Didn't the FAMILY make the bad choice? Why are we the bad guys when the parents broke the law and made a poor life choice? While I have nothing but the deepest empathy for a parent doing what they can to make a better life for their kids... that doesn't absolve them of culpability. Do we not throw a man in prison for stealing because he's kisd will be without a dad because he robbed someone to provide better for his kids? Of course not.

The emotional play to ignore our own laws is insidious and unfair to the law abiding citizens, it's a cost burden that's unfair to those paying. Either we're a nation of laws, or a nation of emotions, and nations of emotions never fare well.

Ending "birthright citizenship" (BC) would go a long way to making the solution easier.

I know it sounds harsh, and I even agree that it is harsh, but illegal immigrants when caught need to be deported. That includes kids who have lived here most of their lives, or even born here and all of their lives (after BC is ended). If the kid is a citizen, and the parent is not, then the parent has a decision to make. Let the kid stay with friends or relatives, or take the kid back with them. Allowing the parent to stay, simply because they have a citizen kid here, should not be an option.

And really, no one should be mad at the government for this. This situation is wholly and solely on the parent's shoulders.

 

[OpportunityCost]

What Federal law do sanctuary cities violate?

Immigration law. They are ignoring law breaking and shielding illegal immigrants from it, aiding and abetting, essentially.

 

[Gaius46]

Immigration law. They are ignoring law breaking and shielding illegal immigrants from it, aiding and abetting, essentially.

Maybe, but likely not. States do have to enforce federal law. They can't stop the feds from enforcing federal law on state land but the SC has ruled that the states have no obligation to enforce federal law or assist the feds in enforcing it.

If all a state is doing is refusing to arrest illegals for immigration law violations or if refusing to tell the feds where the illegals are they are not breaking the law.

 

[radcen]

Maybe, but likely not. States do have to enforce federal law. They can't stop the feds from enforcing federal law on state land but the SC has ruled that the states have no obligation to enforce federal law or assist the feds in enforcing it.

If all a state is doing is refusing to arrest illegals for immigration law violations or if refusing to tell the feds where the illegals are they are not breaking the law.

I wonder how many states/cities cherry-pick which laws they'll enforce?

Example: Choose not to enforce federal immigration law, but choose to enforce federal drug law via "equitable sharing" civil asset forfeiture?

 

[Gaius46]

I wonder how many states/cities cherry-pick which laws they'll enforce?

Example: Choose not to enforce federal immigration law, but choose to enforce federal drug law via "equitable sharing" civil asset forfeiture?

They probably all do. I know NY's mayor has refused to do anything about illegals because he's concluded the economic harm is just too great.

I did a little reading on the subject a few months back and it seems that the feds delegate a lot of their enforcement to local agencies. On balance that's probably a good thing since local LEOs and prosecutors and the like are both closer to the citizens than bureaucrats in Washington and more accountable to them (at least in theory).

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Obama deported more people than any other president.

TRUE

I don't think we have an 'illegal alien' problem.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Maybe, but likely not. States do have to enforce federal law. They can't stop the feds from enforcing federal law on state land but the SC has ruled that the states have no obligation to enforce federal law or assist the feds in enforcing it.

If all a state is doing is refusing to arrest illegals for immigration law violations or if refusing to tell the feds where the illegals are they are not breaking the law.

You do understand there are different levels of the law for officers of the court, law officials and executive branch officials, yes?

They are breaking the law. You aren't allowed to look the other way. They have an obligation to their offices at various levels.

 

[Gaius46]

You do understand there are different levels of the law for officers of the court, law officials and executive branch officials, yes?

They are breaking the law. You aren't allowed to look the other way. They have an obligation to their offices at various levels.

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're driving at with "different levels of law."

The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated in Prinz v United States that the Constitution gives responsibility of enforcement of the laws that Congress passes to the President and that he cannot delegate that responsibility to officers he doesn't control (that is non federal employees). As well the court pointed out that forcing states to enforce federal laws violates the concept of dual sovereignty.

So in short the the states have no legal responsibility to do anything about illegal immigrants.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're driving at with "different levels of law."

The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated in Prinz v United States that the Constitution gives responsibility of enforcement of the laws that Congress passes to the President and that he cannot delegate that responsibility to officers he doesn't control (that is non federal employees). As well the court pointed out that forcing states to enforce federal laws violates the concept of dual sovereignty.

So in short the the states have no legal responsibility to do anything about illegal immigrants.

Law enforcement, executive branch officials and officers of the court have a higher level of responsibility towards reporting and enforcing the law. They are not supposed to ignore laws. They have obligations.

As for dual sovereignty, maybe they shouldn't sign certificates and grants that give them federal money for ENFORCING federal laws than ignore the obligations it engenders.

 

[Gaius46]

Law enforcement, executive branch officials and officers of the court have a higher level of responsibility towards reporting and enforcing the law. They are not supposed to ignore laws. They have obligations.

As for dual sovereignty, maybe they shouldn't sign certificates and grants that give them federal money for ENFORCING federal laws than ignore the obligations it engenders.

The Courts see if differently. The NYPD does not work for the President.

If Federal money came with strings then the Feds are free to try to get it back but that's about as far as they can go other than sending Federal agents into the city and enforcing federal law themselves.

 

[OpportunityCost]

The Courts see if differently. The NYPD does not work for the President.

If Federal money came with strings then the Feds are free to try to get it back but that's about as far as they can go other than sending Federal agents into the city and enforcing federal law themselves.

The NYPD is paid to uphold the penal code and the law. They don't get to ignore the parts of it they don't like. As much as you are trying to excuse it, you can't. The strings were simple notification which is not onerous in the least.

 

[Gaius46]

The NYPD is paid to uphold the penal code and the law. They don't get to ignore the parts of it they don't like. As much as you are trying to excuse it, you can't. The strings were simple notification which is not onerous in the least.

I've cited the SC case that supports my position. Do you have anything to support your position outside of the fact that you don't like the way the world actually works?

The NYPD is paid to enforce NY law - and in point of fact NYPD officers - like officers everywhere routinely decide to not enforce laws (a cop ever let you slide on a ticket?)

 

[ocean515]

Obama deported more people than any other president.

TRUE

I don't think we have an 'illegal alien' problem.

High deportation figures are misleading - LA Times

But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.

Expulsions of people who are settled and working in the United States have fallen steadily since his first year in office, and are down more than 40% since 2009.

Until recent years, most people caught illegally crossing the southern border were simply bused back into Mexico in what officials called "voluntary returns," but which critics derisively termed "catch and release." Those removals, which during the 1990s reached more 1 million a year, were not counted in Immigration and Customs Enforcement's deportation statistics.