Yeah but that's suggesting that the solution is to ignore their crimes when IMO the solution is to make them not here in the first place. If they aren't here illegally, they can't be exploited. When you set up sanctuaries for Illegals, you are enabling them to break the law and be in a position to be exploited.
The UN Human rights counsel is an absolute joke, if you look at the members of that counsel it is a who's who of human rights abusers.
Its like something out of Orwell's 1984. Its the Ministry of Love, who could be against love? Its the human rights counsel, who could be against human rights?
Ridiculous. State and local police are the law enforcement that handle the majority of robbery, domestic violence, homicide, sexual assault.
Agreed. Also, I think it is also reasonable for people here to want to deny illegal immigrants entry into this country for their own economic benefit, much the same way that others want to permit illegal immigrants entry into this country for their own economic benefit. Economically, I am closer to the bottom than I am the top. Wanting to protect my wages against overcapacity in the job market is not wrong.
And then? What about when they turn around and do it in a couple of months now they know their children won't be separated if caught? It's one short sighted solution after another and well be going in circles forever. Cant be scared to ask host nations what's causing them to leave , what the host nations are doing wrong , how to curb overpopulation and start imposing sanctions if they continue to ignore. It always comes down to money.
How is a guy picking vegetables or curating lawns for $12 an hour affecting your ability to add to the job market?
Didn't the UN Human Right Council comes into existence in 2006, after Clinton's presidency? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council
Interesting, and perhaps the pressure on trump to step back away has built towards this. First, Melania travels to the border, and now this... which is true, is significant:
Yes, effectively replacing the U.N. Human Rights Commission, which folded due to criticisms of ineffectiveness.
I'm sure you know that the harm caused by Illegal immigrants goes way beyond competition for jobs....but even then, that's a job that an American citizen can't do. On top of that, there's a host of crimes that are routinely committed by illegal immigrants for practical purposes. In order to secure jobs and housing they routinely commit identity theft and other forms of fraud, if they drive, they do so without a license and almost always without insurance unless they secure the license and insurance fraudulently. They often benefit from government programs with fraudulent documents. Basically there's just nothing good that comes from illegal immigration other than the ways that they can be mistreated, abused, and exploited....which are awful things. Anyone would truly cared about "cruelty" would work to end illegal immigration entirely.....but we know that no one really cares.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Local police handle all the robbery, domestic violence, homicide, sexual assault, etc stuff. Violent crimes with victims. You want those victims to be confident they can rely on police and that they won't make their own lives worse by ratting out criminals. That's why you don't want them enforcing immigration laws. I'm not sure if I am fundamentally misunderstanding your objection, or you are fundamentally misunderstanding the sanctuary city debate. No, I don't think its 'wrong.' The wrong part is that we have the official immigration system and the real immigration system. In the real system, our businesses have an appetite for tens of thousands of low-skill immigrant workers every year, and they are supplied by illegals. In the official system, the supply and the demand is outlawed. But, just like our appetite for drugs does not abide interdiction, our appetite for immigrant workers will not be denied. You want to seal the border to protect your own bargaining power so you can earn more money. Nothing wrong with that except that it's not going to work. Instead of fighting the economics of it all the time, I think it is wiser to recognize it and channel it. Make a path by which employers can employ the workers they want in a legal arrangement. That means letting tens of thousands of low-skill workers into the country every year. But they were going to come anyway. And, if they're legal, then the outfits they work for can be legal, which will mean better work conditions, fair pay, and the end (well, reduction) of exploitation. And you'll know who the workers are, can run background checks, can revoke visas when necessary, etc. That might not be as beneficial to you as succeeding at sealing the border, but it is somewhat beneficial. And, more importantly, its attainable while stopping immigration is not attainable.
only after the cable news shows have been asking for days "where is Ivanka, the self-annointed conscience of women and children" ? as a point of reference, during the Syria refugees crisis, ivanka was quick to condemn the neglect/abuse of children there, that is to say, as long as her father is not involved
I'm referring to increasing legal quotas for them to do the low wage work Americans will not. Not letting illegals flow in to support 7 kids on $750/month.
Its so weird that she has to CALL OUT to end something that her husband started. It's like the world has gone crazy.
Important point being made here... doj can only prosecute those referred by dhs. So its still arbitrary. But hopefully dhs will move back towards past practices...
