Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Speaking of 
, I've been thinking a lot about him lately 
, I've been thinking a lot about him lately Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Undocumented Immigrant Thread (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
badmojo1006
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Yes. Really.
Seems that you and Tim want to have laws, you just don't want people to adhere to them. This isn't a case were immigrants were denied the process. They had their opportunity, for whatever reason, it was denied. They were instructed to leave the country and chose to ignore those instructions.
I think it's pretty simple process to understand. Unless you want to ignore laws for the sake of being stubborn.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
badmojo1006
Footballguy
Jobber
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Okay.
We have rules. It seems that people like Tim want to say that we need to allow people to come into the country freely. These people did (and are). Then people complain that we have to give them opportunity through a legal process to gain right to stay here permanently. Which they did. We are now at a point where they have been told to leave the country, which they haven't. They are now going to be removed by force.
Seems that many of you want to establish rules, but don't want to agree to the negative outcome of those rules when it means the rules determined an outcome that you don't like. Why have the rules at all?
Mile High
Footballguy
And there are still more indications that this is a political operation. The Post report also includes this:
ICE agents have limited intelligence on the locations of the families with court-ordered deportations beyond their last known addresses. But White House and ICE officials believe agents will be able to make many “collateral arrests” by finding foreigners living in the country illegally at or near the target locations.
This means that agents are going to have a tough time finding some of the people they’re hoping to arrest — but that’s okay, because they’ll be able to pick up other undocumented immigrants they come across along the way.
Meanwhile, acting DHS chief Kevin McAleenan has privately argued for a much smaller operation that would “detain a group of about 150 families that were provided with attorneys but dropped out of the legal process and absconded," as The Post reports. That’s because he fears the following:
McAleenan has warned that an indiscriminate operation to arrest migrants in their homes and at work sites risks separating children from their parents in cases where the children are at day care, summer camp or friend’s houses.
It’s plainly obvious what’s going on here. Some inside the administration (McAleenan) fear that this operation could result in horrific imagery of more child separations, and want it scaled back.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/21/trump-ordered-up-mass-arrests-reelection-purposes-now-hes-getting-them/%3foutputType=amp
ICE agents have limited intelligence on the locations of the families with court-ordered deportations beyond their last known addresses. But White House and ICE officials believe agents will be able to make many “collateral arrests” by finding foreigners living in the country illegally at or near the target locations.
This means that agents are going to have a tough time finding some of the people they’re hoping to arrest — but that’s okay, because they’ll be able to pick up other undocumented immigrants they come across along the way.
Meanwhile, acting DHS chief Kevin McAleenan has privately argued for a much smaller operation that would “detain a group of about 150 families that were provided with attorneys but dropped out of the legal process and absconded," as The Post reports. That’s because he fears the following:
McAleenan has warned that an indiscriminate operation to arrest migrants in their homes and at work sites risks separating children from their parents in cases where the children are at day care, summer camp or friend’s houses.
It’s plainly obvious what’s going on here. Some inside the administration (McAleenan) fear that this operation could result in horrific imagery of more child separations, and want it scaled back.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/21/trump-ordered-up-mass-arrests-reelection-purposes-now-hes-getting-them/%3foutputType=amp
HellToupee
Footballguy
Round up the bad ones , get them off the streets and out of here. Simple. Nothing nefarious, just get the bad ones out. Round them up
Mile High
Footballguy
If it’s the more limited operation, Sandweg said, it might have some law enforcement justification, since it involves families who were given access to attorneys but didn’t turn up at hearings anyway.
"But if its the second, broader Trump version, it has very limited operational value,” Sandweg told us. “You’re draining tremendous resources away from the apprehension of dangerous criminals, and from the current humanitarian crisis at the border.”
“This is a very time- and labor-intensive operation,” Sandweg continued. “You have to send a lot of agents, and that requires a lot of planning. You’re pulling from something in order to do this. The way they are talking about this publicly strongly suggests that it’s of a political nature."
"But if its the second, broader Trump version, it has very limited operational value,” Sandweg told us. “You’re draining tremendous resources away from the apprehension of dangerous criminals, and from the current humanitarian crisis at the border.”
“This is a very time- and labor-intensive operation,” Sandweg continued. “You have to send a lot of agents, and that requires a lot of planning. You’re pulling from something in order to do this. The way they are talking about this publicly strongly suggests that it’s of a political nature."
badmojo1006
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Good one. I think most non-violent felons should probably have to go to, on a case by case basis. But basically if you want to stay you need to keep your nose clean.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'm personally of the opinion that a conviction of a non-citizen for certain crimes (which we can set forth as a society - violence, etc) should include deportation in the sentence. Anyone not committing crimes we should keep around. Seems like the easy way to deal with it.
And then anyone not committing crimes can turn in the ones who are without worrying about getting deported for showing up at the police station or courthouse.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mile High
Footballguy
Trump administration says it plans to arrest 2K family members in deportation raids
Declaring "there has to be consequences" to coming to the U.S. illegally, the nation's top immigration enforcement official said in an interview Friday that the “rule of law” was at stake and "political will" needed, as his agency planned to arrest more than 2,000 undocumented immigrant family members.
In an interview with ABC News Live, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Mark Morgan said there were no plans to commence deportations in the range of “millions,” as President Donald Trump’s tweet Monday suggested was imminent.
But Morgan tells ABC the “integrity” of the system was in question. The agency planned to target more than 2,040 family members who had already received deportation orders but were still living inside the United States. CNN and The Washington Post reported that the focus of the raids would be in 10 cities and take place Sunday.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-administration-plans-arrest-2k-family-members-deportation/story%3fid=63864202
Declaring "there has to be consequences" to coming to the U.S. illegally, the nation's top immigration enforcement official said in an interview Friday that the “rule of law” was at stake and "political will" needed, as his agency planned to arrest more than 2,000 undocumented immigrant family members.
In an interview with ABC News Live, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Acting Director Mark Morgan said there were no plans to commence deportations in the range of “millions,” as President Donald Trump’s tweet Monday suggested was imminent.
But Morgan tells ABC the “integrity” of the system was in question. The agency planned to target more than 2,040 family members who had already received deportation orders but were still living inside the United States. CNN and The Washington Post reported that the focus of the raids would be in 10 cities and take place Sunday.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-administration-plans-arrest-2k-family-members-deportation/story%3fid=63864202
timschochet
Footballguy
Laws or rules should be subject to morality. If the laws or rules are immoral, then you ignore them or you break them. Doesn't mean that we have to live in a lawless society. There is no slippery slope.
Here's a historical example: Anthony Burns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Burns
Burns was a slave who escaped from the south to Boston. Under the law (the Fugitive Slave Act) the federal government arrested him and planned to return him to his former owner. However, the abolitionists of Boston, believing that this was immoral, attempted to break into the jail where he was being held and free him. This was an unlawful act, but history looks kindly on those who tried to free him, and unkindly on those who chose to follow the law.
That is pretty close to how I view rounding up undocumented immigrants. No, we are not returning them to slavery so it's not a perfect analogy, But we are returning them to human misery that they risked their lives in most instances to flee. It's an immoral act, and frankly I don't care what the law says. In this case I think the law should be ignored, and I stand on good American principle in reaching that conclusion.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Shocking that we are going to round up people that have been court ordered to be deported!
Oh the humanity!
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Why do you feel differently about those that have committed a violent crime? Aren't they being sent back to human misery?
Ultimately, it comes down to what you think constitutes grounds for deportation vs what I think. We have rules established. If you're not a U.S. citizen and you don't abide by those rules, then you are deported. Living in this country is a privileged. In return for that privilege, those living here are asked to follow some pretty simple laws. As much as I'd like to deport some of our own citizens, we can't because their home country is the U.S..
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
I didn't realize all of you Trump supporters were Native Americans.
And before you post, "I'm not but my ancestors game here legally". That's exactly what the vast majority of these people are trying to do.
And before you post, "I'm not but my ancestors game here legally". That's exactly what the vast majority of these people are trying to do.
KCitons
Footballguy
This isn't about them coming here legally. It's about them going through the process and being told to return to their country. If you're expecting a response from someone who's ancestors came here and were told to return to their country, you probably won't receive one.
And quit generalizing all those that want immigration laws as being Trump supporters.
timschochet
Footballguy
Those who have committed violent crimes are bad people (by definition) and with them we are forced to take a different attitude since security of the state has to be the main concern of the government. But this doesn’t apply to the vast majority of undocumented people who are not violent.
I agree that living in this country is a privilege. I agree that those who live here are asked to follow laws. As it turns out, undocumented people usually follow the laws better than do our native born citizens. They are more deserving of the privilege of staying than most people who are born here.
boots11234
Footballguy
I don’t care. They are here illegally. See Ya, wouldn’t want to be ya.
Seems however he’s still behind Obama’s Pace.
Last edited by a moderator:
Cowboysfan8
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Are you talking about all, or the ones that are the target of this latest sting?
If it's the latter, wasn't that path started? Otherwise, why would they have a court order to leave the country?
KCitons
Footballguy
It sounds like immigrants are already given opportunities that we don't give to our own citizens. If you are charged with a crime and found guilty in court, you're usually required to pay right after you are sentenced. If not, you sit in jail to pay off that fine. Not sure how some of these illegal immigrants were told to leave the country, yet are allowed to waltz out of the courtroom. Only to spend more money to round track them down a second time to enforce it.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
I've seen otherwise. I'm no lawyer, but spent time having to testify on behalf of business. As much as traffic, parking, and a giant waste of time, it was amusing watching the proceedings unfold.
I'd also compare Tim's $5000 fine for illegal immigrants to stay in the country, to someone breaking into my house. They get a $5000 fine, but get to continue to live in my house.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Why? In both cases a law was broken.
How many crimes can you think of where a law is broken and the court allows them to keep what they took?
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
For people who come here without legal documents. They’re not taking anything from you (actually I could argue the opposite.) Nor are they moving into your house.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Ok. Let's change the analogy to trespassing on property. Once im charged and pay my fine, do I get to return to your property and stay?
The laws are clear about what needs to be done to enter and stay on this country. The same way the laws are clear about trespassing.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
A person in need could trespass on your property and you could allow them to stay there because they needed your help and you could not turn them in though.
KCitons
Footballguy
I didn't say they were. It's a comparison using laws that punish when something isn't taken.
Criminal trespassing would be very similar. I've issued 100's of criminal trespasses to shoplifters over the years. I've also charged a few dozen with criminal trespassing. They were trespassed because they broke some type of law (just as entering the country illegally is breaking a law). They were charged with criminal trespassing simply by returning to the place of business. Even though they never "took" anything.
KCitons
Footballguy
I could also not allow them to do either.
The point I was making is that they don't need to "take" something to be charged.
Similar threads
