Undocumented Immigrant Thread (2 Viewers)

parasaurolophus said:

My larger point is that we as an electorate should not tolerate our local tax dollars being put to federal use and we need to hold those official accountable at the local level and tell them we won't stand for it.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Sure....I figured you'd understand that I understand there are exceptions, but I didn't specifically state "as a general rule" so I am now.

Click to expand...

How can you say the two quotes above? Hey, here is a general rule. Hey I didnt say as a general rule. 

Click to expand...

parasaurolophus said:

The Commish said:

To this specific scenario you lay out here, I'd be perfectly fine with local government saying "Hey, we have this dude you may want.  He's going to be here for a couple days while we go through the legal process.  Get down here and get him in that timeframe"  That seems like a pretty logical and reasonable response.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by my specific scenario. ICE detainers aren't very long. That's what we are discussing. From the FAQ page on their site...

Q: What happens if ICE does not assume custody of the individual after 48 hours?

A: If ICE does not assume custody after 48 hours (excluding weekends and holidays), the local law enforcement agency (LEA) is required to release the individual. The LEA may not lawfully hold an individual beyond the 48-hour period.

Click to expand...

So first you say no local dollars for fed use, then you say you didn't say that, but then you say it again, but then you say you are ok with it after all.

Click to expand...

Ditkaless Wonders said:

Understand I am not advocating the approach, just disputing that because their numbers are large that we have to cede the problem as something that is not even theoretically addressable.

My personal belief is that it would be very damaging for relations between local governments and the residents who reside there to implement such programs.  Our Police and Code Enforcement Officers need to establish trust in those communities. Our Community Development and Development Assistance and Small Business Office need inroads into those communities, inroads which would be severed if we undertook the policy.  No, I don't advocate such, but I do believe the problem is addressable.  I do not find th enumbers of them daunting, only the other matters, as you have suggested, such as economic disruption.

Anyhow, thanks for your reply.  I certainly need to recognize the distribution and concentration numbers of both illegals and L.E. as you have suggested and as I, admittedly, had not given any thought.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

No...I'm expecting my federal tax dollars to go to doing it's job.  If you want to argue that immigration issues should be pushed to the states, that's one thing.  Or if you want to say that the federal government doesn't have the funds to do what the law requires, that is also a valid discussion to have.  But as it is right now, that's the job of ICE.  Our federal tax dollars pay for that.  I don't want my local tax dollars going to the things the federal government are supposed to be doing.  That's the very definition of federal government overreach.  I want my local tax dollars going to my kids' schools, our infrastructure and helping small businesses grow.  My local taxes should not be going to the bloat of the federal government because they can't do their jobs efficiently.  

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

I'm not seeing the distinction.  I wasn't attempting to point out hypocrisy, though it's an interesting perspective.  My point is primarily that those who typically claim they are for smaller government are typically the same ones who cheer on local authorities being used to do federal tasks.  That's completely illogical IMO.  I'm not sure if they've thought about it that way, ever.  If they haven't, it would be hard for me to label them a hypocrite.  The fascination from my perspective was the completely illogical position they've established and wondering if they even realize it or not.

My larger point is that we as an electorate should not tolerate our local tax dollars being put to federal use and we need to hold those official accountable at the local level and tell them we won't stand for it.  It's a significant drain, especially when we already have federal tax dollars going to address the issue.  As the law is written today, border security and immigration is the job of the federal government funded through federal tax dollars.  Until that changes, the federal government has no business asking us to pay them with our local tax dollars to do that job.

Hope that's clearer.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Wanted to address this separately.  We pay federal taxes understanding that the Department of Education plays a role in this country's education system.  I don't have a problem with that.  I'm trying to think of a reason why you'd think I should have a problem with that or how that particular example is similar to the immigration issue,  but that's my answer.  Same holds true for infrastructure.  We pay taxes to the government understanding the Department of Transportation plays a role in the country's infrastructure.  As long as the funds are being used for those purposes, I don't have a problem.  As for local businesses, it's my belief they can accept whatever form of compensation they choose.  If they want to accept bitcoin, trades, money, SNAP, exchange labor hours for goods, whatever, that's their choice.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Sure....I figured you'd understand that I understand there are exceptions, but I didn't specifically state "as a general rule" so I am now.

I can't think of a scenario where my local tax dollars going to federal projects in lieu of my local projects are going to save me or my community money on my local projects.  I've not made a cost/benefit that I am aware of.  To this specific scenario you lay out here, I'd be perfectly fine with local government saying "Hey, we have this dude you may want.  He's going to be here for a couple days while we go through the legal process.  Get down here and get him in that timeframe"  That seems like a pretty logical and reasonable response.

I gave you the logic behind my position and notice you don't include it in your framing of my position.  If you feel it's strange that I think it's ok for the federal government to spend federal funds on the federal programs that support the states, I guess I'm strange.  To ME it's odd that one would balk at using federal funds on stated federal programs that support the states.  I understand that the fed and state governments have to work together.  That does not mean that we should not be diligent in where/how the federal funds are spent and where/how the local/state funds are spent.  Sure...if you pull this up to the 10,000 foot level, it's easy to make the "what's the big deal" argument.  Until you dig down and look at direct impact. 

For example...should be easy enough to invision this scenario:

Local Govt:  We are proposing a sales tax increase of $.01 on the local sales tax to build the new elementary school needed.
Me:  Awesome...you have my vote.
Local Govt:  (1 year later)...we need to increase the sales tax another $.005.
Me:  Why?  What did you do with the money we already agreed to in the $.01 tax increase.
Local Govt:  Oh...we used that to supplement the police officers necessary for the community.
Me:  Why?  It was for the schools
Local Govt:  We've been helping detain criminals for the federal government and gone over our budget in doing so.

To me...that's a big problem...if you deem it strange, I think I'm ok with that

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Easy....read the whole thing...particularly the bold/underlined.  Initially I was giving you credit because I wasn't clear, but it seems you understood since you seem to be saying you understood I meant that was the general rule.  Pointing out exceptions as if they aren't the exception rather the general rule seems counterproductive.  This just makes me think you're arguing to argue.

This says from a legal perspective that the local LEA can hold the person for 48 hours.  If due process only takes say 12 hours to process locally, that's 36 hours worth of resources the local group is paying for that they wouldn't normally have to.  I'm good with ICE getting there in the 12 hour frame to get the guy...I am not ok with the local group being on the hook for the expenses for the other 36 hours.  Those are resources and tax dollars that should be allocated elsewhere.  Sorry I used "a couple of days"...I wasn't thinking before and it was a sloppy scenario.

Click to expand...

The Commish said:

Why I see federal funds as outlined differently.

It's clear the meanings got lost in the word salads....the bold above is essentially my POV on the whole thing.  As I said, if this makes me "strange", I think I'm ok with that.

Click to expand...

parasaurolophus said:

I understand your position now. I still think that it is rooted in a disagreement with spending on immigration enforcement not a role of the various levels of government since you would obviously not take issue with a locality holding a guy like Cesar Sayoc until the feds get there. 

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

15 States (Washington, California, Texas, Nevada, Colorado, Illinois, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts) account for almost 80% of the undocumented immigrant population in the United States (almost 8.4 million of the 10.7 million estimated undocumented immigrants in the country in 2016, according to Pew Research Center.) 

Just California and Texas are almost 4 million.  I do not believe it is feasible for Texas and California to legally identify, apprehend, and turn over four million people to the Feds within a few years.

Click to expand...

Ditkaless Wonders said:

I tend to disagree.  

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=30

Our courts contact an incredible number of folks every year.  Our L.E. many times more.  Additionally, for a sizeable percentage of illegals if the breadwinner or head of household is deported perhaps the family goes with them.  Also, if the effort is being made and is known many will self deport.  will it ever reach 100%, of course not, but will it be a substantial and significant number within a year or two, if implemented, absolutely.  Now again, I do not advocate this.  This sort of messaging is what Trump is doing right now and in many ways it is repugnant.  I simply am arguing against Tim's point that we must throw up our hands in the face of a large number, which is false as there are equally large numbers countervailing, potentially, on the other side and that large number is multiplied easily by days over which it can act.  Inaction here is not, as he states, based upon impossibility of action.  The very real possibility, as a math problem, is there.  This is not a question of impossibility of numbers, though they are at first blush overwhelming.  this is, as it has always been, a policy matter.  We do not accept such arguments as he made at face value in other venues.  We do not address poverty, weather emergencies, war as impossible because the first blush numbers are daunting and there is no reason to believe that this situation is different in that regard.  

Click to expand...

 Non-traffic cases per judge ranged from a low of 360 non-traffic cases per full-time general jurisdiction court judge in Massachusetts to a high of 4,374 non-traffic cases per judge in South Carolina.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

Interesting other bottleneck in that link. Those are total numbers. The overwhelming majority of those cases do not involve tracking, apprehending, and incarcerating the alleged perpetrator for long periods pre-trial and the numbers include all civil cases.

From your link:

Immigration deportation cases are at least as complex as the typical non- traffic case. Even if you could get 1,000 cases per year per judge that end in deportation, the usual average (which, again, would require apprehending and incarcerating these 11 million people at a rate of 3-4 million per year minimum) you would need a thousand or more new judges for California and Texas alone for four years.  That’s almost three times the number of currently acting immigration judges.

Basically, in order to deport 11,000,000 people in two years as you’ve suggested, you’d need not only to apprehend, incarcerate, feed, shelter, and care for 5.5 million people per year you’d also have to employ approximately 14x as many immigration judges as we have ever employed in the history of the country.

I just don’t see it, man. But it’s an interesting thought experiment. 

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

Interesting other bottleneck in that link. Those are total numbers. The overwhelming majority of those cases do not involve tracking, apprehending, and incarcerating the alleged perpetrator for long periods pre-trial and the numbers include all civil cases.

From your link:

Immigration deportation cases are at least as complex as the typical non- traffic case. Even if you could get 1,000 cases per year per judge that end in deportation, the usual average (which, again, would require apprehending and incarcerating these 11 million people at a rate of 3-4 million per year minimum) you would need a thousand or more new judges for California and Texas alone for four years.  That’s almost three times the number of currently acting immigration judges.

Basically, in order to deport 11,000,000 people in two years as you’ve suggested, you’d need not only to apprehend, incarcerate, feed, shelter, and care for 5.5 million people per year you’d also have to employ approximately 14x as many immigration judges as we have ever employed in the history of the country.

I just don’t see it, man. But it’s an interesting thought experiment. 

Click to expand...

Ditkaless Wonders said:

I believe I made that very point, or that very concession in my first post.

I just checked.  Indeed I did make that point.  And for me this is nothing more than a thought experiment, a bit of Devil's advocacy.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

So you’re admitting that understanding your entire discussion depends on my ability to read? Sounds like a weak argument to me. 

Click to expand...

Ditkaless Wonders said:

You are among the most literate folks it has ever been my pleasure with whom to interact.

Click to expand...

Henry Ford said:

As soon as my assistant returns to read this to me I am either going to thank you or hunt you down like a rabid chipmunk.  Depending on what it says. 

Click to expand...

BroadwayG said:

Haven't heard much of this recently. Did the last bundle of aid to improve facilities work? Is Mexico successfully deterring the amount of people coming to the border?

Click to expand...

BroadwayG said:

Haven't heard much of this recently. Did the last bundle of aid to improve facilities work? Is Mexico successfully deterring the amount of people coming to the border?

Click to expand...