• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House Picks Critic of Local Immigration Enforcement for Key Role at ICE

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Obama administration has tapped an outspoken critic of immigration enforcement on the local level to oversee and promote partnerships between federal and local officials.

Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix, has been hired as the director for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Office of State and Local Coordination. Starting July 6, Hurtt will supervise outreach and communication between ICE, local law enforcement agencies, tribal leaders and representatives from non-governmental organizations.
FOXNews.com - White House Picks Critic of Local Immigration Enforcement for Key Role at ICE

More proof Obama needs to go.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Regardless of what you think about immigration, hiring a vehement critic of local enforcement to be in charge of coordinating state and local enforcement is a bit ridic.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I see this as proof that Obama wants amnesty instead of something actually done about illegal immigration. Most logical people would asking isn't that like GLAD appointing Fred Phelps to be in charge of their organization or the president appointing Code Pink in charge of the military.
 

Jucon

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
787
Reaction score
222
Location
USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I see this as proof that Obama wants amnesty instead of something actually done about illegal immigration. Most logical people would asking isn't that like GLAD appointing Fred Phelps to be in charge of their organization or the president appointing Code Pink in charge of the military.
I agree. At the same time, I somewhat support this type of move. Not so much because I'm in favor of giving them amnesty (I personally would prefer they returned to their country of origin), but I feel hunting down the millions of illegal immigrants is inhumane. And it would be impossible to find them all. Some of these people either are in America because they are looking for work or they just want to escape the war-zone that is Mexico right now... and they don't always feel they can wait for bureaucracy to get them legal status in the U.S., or they just don't have the money for it in the first place.

But I'm just as angry as the next person about how Obama is failing to do something about the illegal immigrants that continue to come into the U.S.
 
Last edited:

LiberalAvenger

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
16,881
Reaction score
2,980
Location
virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
What Obama is doing is called politics. He is pandering to the Mexicans. This will backfire on him.
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,529
Reaction score
4,913
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree. At the same time, I somewhat support this type of move. Not so much because I'm in favor of giving them amnesty (I personally would prefer they returned to their country of origin), but I feel hunting down the millions of illegal immigrants is inhumane. And it would be impossible to find them all. Some of these people either are in America because they are looking for work or they just want to escape the war-zone that is Mexico right now... and they don't always feel they can wait for bureaucracy to get them legal status in the U.S., or they just don't have the money for it in the first place.

But I'm just as angry as the next person about how Obama is failing to do something about the illegal immigrants that continue to come into the U.S.
IF we enforced our immigration laws and held employers accountable for hiring illegals, I think a large number of them will go home on their own. Not sure where you're getting the notion that enforcing our laws would be "inhumane".
 

roguenuke

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
41,110
Reaction score
13,515
Location
Rolesville, NC
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
I agree. At the same time, I somewhat support this type of move. Not so much because I'm in favor of giving them amnesty (I personally would prefer they returned to their country of origin), but I feel hunting down the millions of illegal immigrants is inhumane. And it would be impossible to find them all. Some of these people either are in America because they are looking for work or they just want to escape the war-zone that is Mexico right now... and they don't always feel they can wait for bureaucracy to get them legal status in the U.S., or they just don't have the money for it in the first place.

But I'm just as angry as the next person about how Obama is failing to do something about the illegal immigrants that continue to come into the U.S.
How do you not see the difference between hunting them down, and finding out someone is illegal when they do something else against the law? There aren't that many local law enforcements (I've actually heard of none) that go door to door checking to see if the residents are there legally. Or who randomly stop people, on the street, in the malls, at random businesses, to ask to see their papers. That, to me, would be hunting them down. Even the new, controversial laws regarding immigration and local law enforcement, the local cops can't ask unless they're already being questioned/stopped/suspected for/of something else.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I agree. At the same time, I somewhat support this type of move. Not so much because I'm in favor of giving them amnesty (I personally would prefer they returned to their country of origin), but I feel hunting down the millions of illegal immigrants is inhumane. And it would be impossible to find them all. Some of these people either are in America because they are looking for work or they just want to escape the war-zone that is Mexico right now....
Why is it the pro-illegals love to pretend that the only solutions to deal with illegals are amnesty or mass round up and deportation(and not only that pretend that it is either inhumane to kick out trespassers or that it is impossible to round up illegals)? Allowing local police to verify the legal status of anyone they pull over for a traffic violation or some other form of lawful contact will drive out illegals, so will denying tax payer funded services,cracking down on dishonest businesses who hire illegals and others who aid illegals, removing the part of the immigration and nationality act of 1965 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor will drive out illegals. And there all sorts of other things that can be done to drive out illegals.

and they don't always feel they can wait for bureaucracy to get them legal status in the U.S., or they just don't have the money for it in the first place.
As far as I know we let in more people into the US than any other country on earth. The only things that should be done is streamline the whole system to make background, criminal and medical checks more easier and we should demand standards for those wishing to immigrate here. A little bureaucracy is good when it comes to immigration. Our borders should not be wide open for anyone wishing to come here. They should have to jump through some hoops. They should have to know or learn english, not be a burden to tax payers, have some sort of valuable skills, not have any dangerous diseases, only swear allegiance to the US(no dual citizenship,no flying other countries flags or speaking other countries languages), pass a criminal back ground checks, not be affiliated with any anti-American or terrorist groups, come and stay here legally, not a birth-right citizenship tourist, and must value all our constitutional rights.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Do we have any info as to how he criticizes local enforcement? Does he say that it shouldn't happen at all or does he say it should be done differently? Criticism of local enforcement doesn't necessarily make him a bad choice, since clearly our enforcement in this country is not very good overall.

MORE INFORMATION NEEDED TO FORM OPINION
 

jujuman13

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 1, 2006
Messages
4,075
Reaction score
579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Do we have any info as to how he criticizes local enforcement? Does he say that it shouldn't happen at all or does he say it should be done differently? Criticism of local enforcement doesn't necessarily make him a bad choice, since clearly our enforcement in this country is not very good overall.

MORE INFORMATION NEEDED TO FORM OPINION
If you need more information, might I suggest you go out and find it yourself.
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Do we have any info as to how he criticizes local enforcement? Does he say that it shouldn't happen at all or does he say it should be done differently? Criticism of local enforcement doesn't necessarily make him a bad choice, since clearly our enforcement in this country is not very good overall.

MORE INFORMATION NEEDED TO FORM OPINION
Absolutely!
And the source is all-important...
Good luck..
No to MSNBC
No to Fox
Maybe to PBS
No man has the time/temperament to read all of this; I'd stay clear of those networks who have sold their soul to the misinformation devil.
 

BWG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
4,373
Reaction score
1,602
Location
South Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I remember hearing Hurtt talk about this and the OP article confirmed what I remembered. Hurtt was doing his job as Police Chief of the Houston Police Department



Article said:
Kelly Nantel, a spokeswoman for ICE, told FoxNews.com that Hurtt has always been a proponent of the jail model of the 287(g) program, which gives local police authority to initiate deportation proceedings against illegal immigrants linked to serious crimes -- but as a police chief, he didn't favor more proactive local enforcement because he didn't believe it was the best utilization of his resources.
Here are some of Hurtt's comments from the U.S. HOUSE COMMITTEE HEARING Immigration hearings in Houston in 2006.

Houston will have to add thousands of police officers if an immigration bill approved by the U.S. House of Representatives becomes law, Chief Harold Hurtt told members of a House subcommittee Wednesday.

"We would need between 2,000 and 2,500 more officers for immigration enforcement," Hurtt testified in a hearing on immigration reform at the new Harris County Civil Courthouse downtown.

Hurtt and City Councilman Adrian Garcia took aim at a provision in the House bill, sponsored by Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, that would cut federal funding to police departments that refuse to enforce immigration laws.

Hurtt called the provision "misguided and wrong," saying immigration enforcement would draw police away from more serious crimes.

Garcia said immigration enforcement would turn a 15-minute traffic stop into an hourlong ordeal and add paperwork, as officers were forced to comply with laws preventing them from stopping people solely because of race or ethnicity.


Immigration Reform Coalition of Texas
 

ric27

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
7,541
Reaction score
3,195
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Harold Hurtt, a former police chief in Houston and Phoenix...lmao

I guess thats Obama´s strategy of killing 2 birds with 1 rock
 

mike2810

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2010
Messages
22,820
Reaction score
7,936
Location
arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, its proof that biased "news" and the "very conservative" need to go.
This is interesting opinion. So who decides what is unbiased news? Would also support "very liberal people" need to go?
Back to the orginal OP. Time will tell if Hurtt will be unbiased and actually enforce the laws. He was for sancturary cities and has stated before Congress that local law enforcement should not be involved in immigration. That is fine if the Feds will step up and take care if the issue.
 
Top Bottom