ICE Crackdown

[knapplc]

 

I'm not an unrealistic ideologue. I realize we're not going to just stop deporting illegal immigrants, nor should we. Like I said, if they've broken the law with a violent crime, they should be kicked out. I may be in the minority, but I don't consider coming here illegally in search of a better life for yourself and your family a crime worth punishing.

 

Especially because undocumented immigrants:

 

* Commit crimes at a lower rate than other residents here

* Pay in to taxes and can't get anything back

* Take jobs Americans largely won't take at wages they don't want

 

I guess where I draw the line is when I read about them targeting a church. Again, the way I read that story (I could be wrong) seems to suggest to me that the Mexicans leaving the church were targeted just for being brown. They had their criminal histories checked on the spot for... what? Possibly being illegal? I'm a white guy, and I could be illegal. Why did they stop the Mexicans? To me, that seems like a stop and frisk, and thus I find it morally bankrupt.

 

If I am wrong in any of this, let me know.

 

I'm personally not going to be quiet about this. If they're going to target community places like churches on only suspicions, I'm going to raise hell. I have lots of friends who are probably undocumented. He promised to deport people and now he is. He's not going to provide a path to citizenship. I think that is worth decrying.

You are wrong on both these accounts.

 

Undocumented immigrants do not pay taxes and even newly documented immigrants do not pay taxes for a number of years. My Brother-in-law has relation that obtained their papers and went 3 years without paying taxes. The company that they work for got a "tax" break for hiring them. I know a couple of Bosnians that I had worked with that never paid taxes either but were US citizens.

 

My cousin, who works in a section of law enforcement that deals with illegal immigrants has a very different perspective on undocumented immigrants and crimes. He is based out of Phoenix, AZ.

 

 

If those people were on the payroll, normal payroll deductions were taken from their checks, including Federal & State income tax and Social Security. When they purchase anything they pay sales taxes, too.

 

I don't know why this myth that "illegals don't pay taxes" persists, but if any of them don't, it's only in cases where they're paid cash under the table, and those people still pay sales tax on purchases. The vast majority of them are paid like everyone else, they pay taxes, and they do not collect on their Social Security contributions.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

Entering a country illegally is a crime...period.

So now we get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones to turn a blind eye too?

Marijuana is illegal nationally yet people can basically consume it openly in Colorado and other states.

So, ya.

That's because in Colorado if you're older than 21, you can legally possess an ounce of weed on your person for recreational use. I'm sure the other 6 states who also allow legalized recreational marijuana usage follow the same guidelines....

Anything over an ounce is a no no

So, ya

Except it's still a schedule 1 drug and is federally illegal to posses or consume. The Feds could come in at anytime and raid the shops and lock everyone up. That's why they are a cash only buisness, because banks don't want to take the risk of association.

 

So ya...

 

^

 

Thanks for getting it.

[Oade]

 

LOMS, are you condoning underage drinking, pirating music, driving at unsafe speed, or anything else on that list?

 

Do you not support the enforcement of those laws? Why not support the enforcement of this law?

 

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it.

 

 

 

That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced.

[knapplc]

 

 

LOMS, are you condoning underage drinking, pirating music, driving at unsafe speed, or anything else on that list?

 

Do you not support the enforcement of those laws? Why not support the enforcement of this law?

 

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it.

 

 

 

That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced.

 

 

So does he. What he's pointing out is that they aren't always enforced, and you know that. It's disingenuous for you to intentionally miss the point of his post and deflect it to something else.

 

I suppose that could be interpreted as a point well made. It's not refutable, hence the deflection.

[Apathy]

 

 

 

Entering a country illegally is a crime...period.

So now we get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones to turn a blind eye too?

Marijuana is illegal nationally yet people can basically consume it openly in Colorado and other states.

So, ya.

That's because in Colorado if you're older than 21, you can legally possess an ounce of weed on your person for recreational use. I'm sure the other 6 states who also allow legalized recreational marijuana usage follow the same guidelines....

Anything over an ounce is a no no

So, ya

Except it's still a schedule 1 drug and is federally illegal to posses or consume. The Feds could come in at anytime and raid the shops and lock everyone up. That's why they are a cash only buisness, because banks don't want to take the risk of association.

 

So ya...

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole wrote in a memo sent Thursday to federal prosecutors that it will not be a priority to block landmark marijuana-legalization laws in the two states. The federal government also will not make it a priority to close down recreational marijuana stores, so long as the stores abide by state regulations, according to the memo.

 

However, if the two states are unable to keep pot away from kids, keep criminal gangs out of the marijuana industry or keep marijuana from being trafficked into neighboring states, among other concerns, Cole wrote that the federal government would consider cracking down.

 

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/08/29/federal-government-wont-block-colorado-marijuana-legalization/

 

So ya

[knapplc]

It's cool that you guys can agree on that. Peace in our time!

[knapplc]

So, this is different.

 

[Oade]

 

 

 

LOMS, are you condoning underage drinking, pirating music, driving at unsafe speed, or anything else on that list?

 

Do you not support the enforcement of those laws? Why not support the enforcement of this law?

 

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it.

 

 

 

That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced.

 

 

So does he. What he's pointing out is that they aren't always enforced, and you know that. It's disingenuous for you to intentionally miss the point of his post and deflect it to something else.

 

I suppose that could be interpreted as a point well made. It's not refutable, hence the deflection.

 

 

What is disingenuous about it?

 

I honestly didn't deflect to anything that hadn't already been mention by someone else..... Yes I pointed out the hypocrisy of his post, and then I ended by asking specifically why not support the enforcement of immigration laws. I'm not claiming that he did or meant to , but if anything, he's the one who deflected the point of topic by bringing up other laws that I assume he also believes need to be enforced - regardless of how anyone personally views said enforcement.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

LOMS, are you condoning underage drinking, pirating music, driving at unsafe speed, or anything else on that list?

 

Do you not support the enforcement of those laws? Why not support the enforcement of this law?

 

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it.

 

 

 

That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced.

 

 

So does he. What he's pointing out is that they aren't always enforced, and you know that. It's disingenuous for you to intentionally miss the point of his post and deflect it to something else.

 

I suppose that could be interpreted as a point well made. It's not refutable, hence the deflection.

 

 

What is disingenuous about it?

 

I honestly didn't deflect to anything that hadn't already been mention by someone else..... Yes I pointed out the hypocrisy of his post, and then I ended by asking specifically why not support the enforcement of immigration laws. If anything, he's the one who deflected the point of topic by bringing up other laws that, I assume, he also believes need to be enforced - regardless of how anyone personally views said enforcement.

 

 

You were being disingenuous by pretending to think he condoned those things when you knew very well he was pointing out existing laws that are not strictly enforced.

 

We're not children. Let's stop pretending.

[Oade]

 

 

 

 

 

LOMS, are you condoning underage drinking, pirating music, driving at unsafe speed, or anything else on that list?

 

Do you not support the enforcement of those laws? Why not support the enforcement of this law?

 

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it.

 

 

 

That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced.

 

 

So does he. What he's pointing out is that they aren't always enforced, and you know that. It's disingenuous for you to intentionally miss the point of his post and deflect it to something else.

 

I suppose that could be interpreted as a point well made. It's not refutable, hence the deflection.

 

 

What is disingenuous about it?

 

I honestly didn't deflect to anything that hadn't already been mention by someone else..... Yes I pointed out the hypocrisy of his post, and then I ended by asking specifically why not support the enforcement of immigration laws. If anything, he's the one who deflected the point of topic by bringing up other laws that, I assume, he also believes need to be enforced - regardless of how anyone personally views said enforcement.

 

 

You were being disingenuous by pretending to think he condoned those things when you knew very well he was pointing out existing laws that are not strictly enforced.

 

We're not children. Let's stop pretending.

 

 

I did not pretend that he condoned those things. I rhetorically asked if he did, because I know that nobody approves of those crimes. However the way he presented his post makes it seem as if the lack of enforcement of those laws or any laws, justifies the lack of enforcement of immigration laws. Which is not true. Its disingenuous and hypocritical.

 

I agree, lets not be children. Lets not act as if our own personal crimes of speeding or underage drinking justifies the lack of enforcement of those laws or any other laws.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOMS, are you condoning underage drinking, pirating music, driving at unsafe speed, or anything else on that list?

 

Do you not support the enforcement of those laws? Why not support the enforcement of this law?

 

Disingenuous. You know what he's pointing out. Rather than speak to the point, this attempts to deflect it.

 

 

 

That's not anymore disingenuous than him. I know that every law that he pointed out needs to be enforced.

 

 

So does he. What he's pointing out is that they aren't always enforced, and you know that. It's disingenuous for you to intentionally miss the point of his post and deflect it to something else.

 

I suppose that could be interpreted as a point well made. It's not refutable, hence the deflection.

 

 

What is disingenuous about it?

 

I honestly didn't deflect to anything that hadn't already been mention by someone else..... Yes I pointed out the hypocrisy of his post, and then I ended by asking specifically why not support the enforcement of immigration laws. If anything, he's the one who deflected the point of topic by bringing up other laws that, I assume, he also believes need to be enforced - regardless of how anyone personally views said enforcement.

 

 

You were being disingenuous by pretending to think he condoned those things when you knew very well he was pointing out existing laws that are not strictly enforced.

 

We're not children. Let's stop pretending.

 

 

I did not pretend that he condoned those things. I rhetorically asked if he did, because I know that nobody approves of those crimes. However the way he presented his post makes it seem as if the lack of enforcement of those laws or any laws, justifies the lack of enforcement of immigration laws. Which is not true. Its disingenuous and hypocritical.

 

I agree, lets not be children. Lets not act as if our own personal crimes of speeding or underage drinking justifies the lack of enforcement of those laws or any other laws.

 

 

You did. You didn't. He didn't. It is. It isn't. OK. Nobody did.

[JJ Husker]

 

Entering a country illegally is a crime...period.

So now we get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones to turn a blind eye too?

 

 

Ever drink before you were 21?

 

Ever drive before you had a license?

 

Ever illegally stream a movie online, or borrow someone's Netflix login?

 

Ever download music without paying for it?

 

Ever go over the speed limit?

 

Ever pull into the middle of an intersection taking a left, only to wait for the yellow and going through while the light was technically red?

 

Ever turn right into the left lane of a two-lane street?

 

Ever take place in a company March Madness pool?

 

Ever connect to unsecured wifi?

 

Ever not put on your seat belt?

 

Ever peed in an alley?

 

Ever failed to update your drivers license after moving?

 

Ever jaywalk?

What is the point?

 

People get caught and punished everyday for most of these things. Sure the enforcement level varies and it may be easier to get away with many of these things as opposed to others. I really am not seeing the point. Are you saying that jaywalking should be enforced with the same zeal and with the same punishment as illegally entering a country? These are all false equivalencies, as is the marijuana example.

 

I think a large part of the problem is that illegal immigration is so rampant that any effort to enforce at a higher level is met with resistance because so much of it has gone unenforced. The first step in my mind is to come up with a workable policy and then actually enforce it. Having a substandard plan and then dealing with that by half-assed enforcement is a recipe for failure.

 

The most important words in this whole issue are; legal, illegal and compassion. I can have compassion for people who were dealt a sh#tty hand in life and still want the laws of this country enforced. There is a limit to the number of people from other countries that we can help by offering them citizenship. Cold hard fact. It really annoys me when people pull out the "they are only trying for a better life" excuse. Yeah, we all understand that. And no, being an illegal immigrant is not the same as many other crimes. Why can't we just decide how many we can absorb and then enforce that level? I mean world hunger is still a thing. Does that mean we have no compassion for the problem because we can't solve it with our limited resources? There will always be more people desiring to come here than we can accomodate. Why place the people who do it illegally in the same category as those who do it the right way?

[knapplc]

So, this is different.

 

 

This is being debunked. Sounds like a good lesson in "let's wait to judge until all the facts are in."

LINK

 

The White House on Friday labeled as “false” a memo reportedly drafted by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly that indicated the Trump administration was considering using up to 100,000 National Guard troops to round up undocumented immigrants.

 

White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement saying the report was “100 percent not true.”

 

“It is false,” Spicer told reporters on Air Force One. “It is irresponsible to be saying this.”

 

He added that the memo, obtained by the Associated Press, “is not a White House document.”

However, a unidentified Homeland Security official told Cox Media Group that the memo was a “very early, pre-decisional draft.” The official added that the suggestion was “never seriously considered by the department.”

 

[RedDenver]

Entering a country illegally is a crime...period.

 

So now we get to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones to turn a blind eye too?

Maybe because our immigration system is broken? How often has Trump said this very thing?

 

Republicans are in complete legislative power, how about they pass laws fixing the broken immigration system? Why issue Executive Orders to enforce a broken system when you can do better?

[BigRedBuster]

 

So, this is different.

 

 

This is being debunked. Sounds like a good lesson in "let's wait to judge until all the facts are in."

LINK

 

The White House on Friday labeled as “false” a memo reportedly drafted by Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly that indicated the Trump administration was considering using up to 100,000 National Guard troops to round up undocumented immigrants.

 

White House press secretary Sean Spicer issued a statement saying the report was “100 percent not true.”

 

“It is false,” Spicer told reporters on Air Force One. “It is irresponsible to be saying this.”

 

He added that the memo, obtained by the Associated Press, “is not a White House document.”

However, a unidentified Homeland Security official told Cox Media Group that the memo was a “very early, pre-decisional draft.” The official added that the suggestion was “never seriously considered by the department.”

 

 

I'll save my outrage till I actually see something like this happen.

 

But....the white house coming out and saying something is false is losing credibility with me when Trump constantly puts out lies.