Yes, it's pretty clear that account is a DNC propaganda bot and I have a job. Thanks for attempting to contribute to the conversation.
So now you dodge over to kidnapping? Again, Cato has that answered in their conclusions: A few more conclusions:
Murder no where to be found in your post. Federal no where to be found in your post. None of the numbers from that post proves anything I posted to be false. federal convictions, unlike state and local, take record of citizenship and represent the nation as a whole. The USSC numbers are better Nationally immigrants are about as likely to commit homicide as natives. 8.9% of convictions vs 8.7% population.
If the gov is concern about violent crimes from illegal immigrants, it would be smart for them to not waste their limited resources. We already know that going after all these families are clogging up the court and diverting resources away from drugs smuggling cases. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1010382509727731712.html Just wrapping up from a long day at a border immigration detention center today, where along with a rock star team of women attorneys we interviewed more than 100 people. /1 Just between the three of us, @ofelial1 @SEDLAW15 and I talked to more than 30. Two most notable observations: /2 First, each and every one of the people we spoke with who has crossed the border had been separated from their child. Every single last one. That’s pretty dramatic in its own right. /3 Second, By today most of them had gotten one brief phone call with their lost child. But only one person actually knew where his child was. Even after finally being able to connect, most parents still had no idea where their children were or how they could find them. /4 Their stories were harrowing. People fled terrible situations, came over with their children. But instead of finding refuge, they found a new kind of terror. Several said they were taken to criminal court for prosecution and then came back to find their children gone. /5 None of them knew what to do to be reunited with their kids. Person after person stoically told us the most horrifying stories about their lives without batting an eye. But when it came to their kids, they all broke down. All they wanted to know was when they’d be reunited. /6 The need is great and the challenges are many. But more than anything, I’m left feeling so deeply in awe of the courage it takes to have the strength and vision to pick up their children and leave, whether fleeing for their lives or in search of a better future. /7 Most of us will never face anything that comes close to that kind of choice. It doesn’t matter where they crossed the border; many have strong asylum claims. All are in need of legal assistance. But very few will ultimately get it. /8 We are going back in tomorrow. We will post more as we learn more. But for now, we have the night to think about how lucky we are that we know exactly where our children are and when we will be seeing them next. /end
I remember reading somewhere that Trump doesn't want more Immigration judges. So doe she just want to detain people for long periods of time? How do you solve the border issue if you block all avenues of fixing the actual problem.
Again, correcting your past misstatements/lies that I originally responded to and corrected with facts from the Cato Insititute and numerous other studies: And here is the conclusion of the Cato Institute study: "The homicide conviction rate for illegal immigrants was 25 percent below that of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015. The conviction rates for illegal immigrants were 11.5 percent and 79 percent below that of native-born Americans for the crimes of sexual assault and larceny, respectively. Illegal immigrants were more likely to be convicted of gambling, kidnapping, smuggling, and vagrancy than natives, but those crimes constituted only 0.18 percent of all convictions that year in Texas. For all criminal convictions in Texas in 2015, illegal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 56 percent below that of native-born Americans. Legal immigrants had a criminal conviction rate 85 percent below that of native-born Americans." Another study concluded the increased population of illegal immigrants resulted in less violent crime in that area: More studies support the same findings: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ldren-migrants-tom-selleck-ms13-a8413056.html
How is building a wall "block all avenues of fixing the actual problem"? Seems like it would solve a lot of the problem
So building a wall would "solve a lot of the problem"? How so? Its an honest question. What would building a wall solve?
Yes, illegal aliens have constitutional rights http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights
Good piece. There was no positive to this, even if you remove and ignore the ethical aspect from it. Detention of Migrant Families as "Deterrence": Ethical Flaws and Empirical Doubts It is important to separate three issues: (1) whether it is moral to use a particular penalty to deter; (2) whether, as an empirical matter, it is effective to use a particular penalty to try to deter; and (3) whether it is legal to use a particular penalty to deter. We address only the first two here. But we should note that, just a few years ago, a federal judge held that the Obama administration’s decision to detain migrant families in order to deter others raised grave due process concerns and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. ... The Trump administration is trying to go down the road of using a combination of zero tolerance criminal prosecutions, family separation, and indefinite family detention to deter migration into the United States. Given the extreme ethical issues the administration’s approach raises, there is a heavy burden on the government to prove that these forms of deterrence even work. The government’s selective and flawed presentation of empirical evidence so far undermines its credibility. But even if the government did not have the burden, an objective analysis of the available evidence shows that the government’s empirical claims do not withstand scrutiny. All this effort on the part of the administration to strike terror into the minds of migrant families over the past several weeks, and zero evidence that it will even reach the actual goal of deterrence. That mistaken reasoning is often what happens when one crosses ethical redlines in making policy.
That's stated in a dishonest manner (completely expected at this point), that case was Obama attempting to keep the children with the parents in detention and the reason it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act was due to a court ruling in 1997 that stated that children could not be detained with their parents for more than 20 days. The reason the courts rejected the Obama policy had nothing at all to do with the detention being used as a deterrent, it had to do with the law mandating that the children be separated. Given that intellectual dishonesty, you can't really take anything the author says seriously.....it's why you need to be honest in your arguments.
