The conversation was about illegal immigration, so no, you weren't talking about increasing legal quotas. This is the comment you were responding to, and your response to it, feel free to point out where ANYONE was talking about increasing legal immigration. if you want to backtrack from your statement, that's fine, but don't pretend like you were talking about something different all along.
no victim no crime then? This is an even weaker argument as state and local enforce those laws as well. Criminals typically run the risk of being apprehended which is the point of deterrence of being a criminal. It's why most people avoid it. The point of sanctuary cities is the left dislikes the laws and chooses to illegally not enforce it
"Willful ignorance is the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict one’s inner model of reality. At heart, it is almost certainly driven by confirmation bias."
You forgot to mention drunk driving and domestic violence which is one of their specialty. A twice deported illegal alien previously nabbed for drunk driving separated a 6-year-old Grace Aguilar from her parents permanently a few months ago could have been easily avoided.
Before that it was called the human rights commission. It was disbanded after the US and others left. They made a new one called the human right counsel which bush wouldn't join but obama did . Trump left it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights Both have the same problem. It's full of a bunch of anti semitic shithead countries.
No, I would agree that changing or eliminating bad law is the thing to do. You enforce the laws on the books. Also, I don't believe that it's wrong to have a law against illegally entering the country. Well sure, just like anyone else there's a host of other crimes that they'd commit and it's unacceptable to have those crimes committed by people that have no business being here to begin with.
http://foxsanantonio.com/news/local/grandmother-separated-at-border-hasnt-seen-grandson-in-months These must be those MS-13 they are stopping form getting in. Those Grandmas and kids with Autism are clever moles for the gangs....
So, you agree that the Nazis enforced their law and that southern slave owners also enforced their law and that those in the wrong were those that decided to not enforce those laws? This IS the Nazi position, in Nazi Germany, it was illegal to not rat out dissenters, by law you were supposed to turn in dissenters to the Gestapo. During slavery, it was law that you turned in any runaway slaves. These were called the Fugitive Slave Laws... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_slave_laws Now, I'm not disagreeing that bad laws should be changed, I am arguing that bad laws should not be followed. I mean the beginning of this country was founded on the idea of rebellion against laws they felt were wrong, you disagree with this? The idea is that if a law promotes violence or inhumane activity it is wrong, it should not be respected, to just shrug and go "It's the Law" is actually how it literally worked for Nazi Germany. That's historically accurate to say. Well, I agree. Many democrats seem to agree. Sanctuary cities don't exist to spit in the face of the law, they exist because the politicians believe (with data to back them up) that people are more likely to report actual violent and dangerous crime if they themselves don't fear they will be turned in for reporting that crime.
I see, you want the law enforced because it's the law. Not ridiculous, but I'd object for 2 reasons: (1) Immigration law is federal law and local police are state and local resources. Federal agencies should not presume upon local resources to enforce their laws for them. No one disputes using ICE agents to enforce immigration law. (2) And more importantly, the mission of local law enforcement is to ensure public safety and they have discretion to enforce or not enforce in particular interactions in order to maximize public safety. So, it does not make a lot of sense for local law enforcement to blindly enforce this federal law about who should and should not be in the country if such enforcement makes the public less safe instead of more safe. I have already explained how it makes the public less safe -- it denies access to law enforcement services from a portion of the public. You offered an anecdote of how enforcement would have made the public more safe, by removing one illegal, a drunk driving death would have been avoided. That idea though, taken to its logical conclusion, would say we are our safest if all people are removed, which would be ridiculous. You could have an argument if it can be shown that these illegal aliens were more dangerous than average people. I have not seen anything convincing on that yet.
Some research suggests that border states and cities are safer. "There's a real disconnect between emotions and facts when it comes to the border," says El Paso city councilman Beto O'Rourke. "You've got a lot of politicians exploiting this fear that the Mexicans are coming over to kill us." http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007474,00.html
Federal law is not overlooked by local and state in the case of terrorism, counter fitting, kidnapping etc etc etc. You want it overlooked and not "presume upon local resources for immigration" because you dislike the law and don't want it enforced. The mission of local law enforcement is to enforce the law. The supreme court has ruled police have no duty to protect the public. "I suspect this vehicle I have pulled over on the interstate to be involved in kidnapping. Better not investigate" - no local/state cop ever
I love enchiladas with cheddar cheese more than Oaxaca cheese, The Power of Mexican food this time aimed at Creepy Waffen-Miller:
Not sure if the US left. It sounds like they were voted off! That's kind of crazy. Given the criticism below, and that the US was voted off, I see why it was disbanded. The new council was to address the problem of disbanded one. The Commission was repeatedly criticized for the composition of its membership. In particular, several of its member countries themselves had dubious human rights records, including states whose representatives had been elected to chair the commission.[8] Another criticism was that the Commission did not engage in constructive discussion of human rights issues, but was a forum for politically selective finger-pointing and criticism. The desire of states with problematic human rights records to be elected to the Commission was viewed largely as a way to defend themselves from such attacks.[9][10] Activist groups had long expressed concern over the memberships of the People's Republic of China, Zimbabwe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, and the past memberships of Algeria, Syria, Libya, Uganda and Vietnam on the Commission. These countries had extensive records of human rights violations, and one concern was that by working against resolutions on the commission condemning human rights violations, they indirectly promoted despotism and domestic repression.[8] On May 4, 2004, United States ambassador Sichan Siv walked out of the Commission following the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission, calling it an "absurdity" in light of Sudan's ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region.[11] One major consequence of the election of Sudan to the Commission was the lack of willingness for some countries to work through the commission. For example, July 30, 2004, it was the United Nations Security Council, not the Commission, that passed a resolution—by 13–0, with China and Pakistan abstaining—threatening Sudan with unspecified sanctions if the situation in the Darfur region did not improve within the following 30 days.[citation needed]The reasons given for the action were the attacks by the Janjaweed Arab militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African Muslim population of Darfur, a region in western Sudan. The commission had also come under repeated criticism from the United States for its unwillingness to address other human rights concerns. In 2002, the United States was voted off the commission by the other member states, many of whom have been criticized for their human rights violations,[citation needed] and in 2003 Syria put forward a proposal to discuss US war crimes in Iraq. But journalist Anne Applebaum wrote, "the European Union and the United States aren't exempt from blame, either", citing their hesitance in voting to criticize Russia's actions in Chechnya.[12] http://www.harvardilj.org/2016/10/d...s-human-rights-council-produce-a-better-jury/ Many states elected to the CHR, however, were notorious human rights violators. This, critics argued, made the CHR an ineffective vehicle for promoting human rights. For instance, Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth vividly compared the CHR to “a jury that includes murderers and rapists, or a police force run in large part by suspected murderers and rapists who are determined to stymie investigation of their crimes.”[2] Similarly, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan wrote, “States have sought membership of the [CHR] not to strengthen human rights but to protect themselves against criticism or to criticize others.”[3 In large part to address the problem that the CHR’s members were among the worst human rights violators, the UN undertook a major reform in 2006 (the “2006 reform”) that eliminated the CHR and replaced it with a new UN body called the Human Rights Council (HRC).[
Exactly. It has taken years, but I finally got through to somebody here on ClutchFans. Now for the millions of other never-Trumpers...
Yes, I agree that those were immoral laws that shouldn't have been enforced even before they were changed....but that has nothing at all to do with this conversation because we're not talking about immoral laws. I consider there to be a difference between immoral laws such as those that led to the holocaust or slavery and a law merely considered "bad". A law merely considered "bad" should be enforced until it is changed. I'm not sure many Democrats do agree that there should be a law against illegally entering the country and I disagree that sanctuary cities in many cases don't exist primarily to spit in the face of the law. In a lot of instances those who set up those cities as sanctuaries are open borders advocates who would be against ANY immigration laws. They set up those sanctuaries so that people can subvert the law as their primary goal. Now sure, the way they'll sell it is by talking about reporting crimes and whatnot, but if they deported the illegal immigrants, they wouldn't be here to be exploited and abused in the first place.
How can you run a country, with economic models and 300 million people, with 20 million off the record people? Ripe to be exploited by corporations who will never legally need to accommodate them? This is only 2000 kids... when they're reunited with their parents, I want to know the next steps, the real steps, to dealing with the steady stream of illegals from Latin America. What message do you send to Latin American countries and leaders?
Local police will enforce on things like you've listed because the interests of the federal government and the interests of the local police force are aligned. I didn't say local cops can't enforce federal law, just that they have discretion (or should have) not to if it doesn't serve their function. I don't dislike the law on unlawful entry, but the reason I don't want it enforced by local police is for exactly the reason I've already stated. If you think I just want open borders, you should read the conversation I'm having with @Cohete Rojo concurrently in this same thread. As for the supreme court, you are taking massive liberties on expounding from that decision to what the purpose of police is. If they're just there to enforce the law without regard to the public interest, they can just go **** themselves. That's more like a Gestapo mission than an HPD mission. Speaking of which, here is the HPD mission: "The mission of the Houston Police Department is to enhance the quality of life in the City of Houston by working cooperatively with the public and within the framework of the U.S. Constitution to enforce the laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear and provide for a safe environment."
All my posts prior in the solving illegal immigration thread and this one. Maybe I mixed them up- Use your internet powers to figure it out. So what are the steps to increase legal immigration?
