I didn't say it doesn't really bother me. I mean, it certainly would if a person close to me was hurt by an illegal alien that had previously been released by law enforcement in a sanctuary city sort of scenario. And every time there is one of these cases Democrats are defiant rather than compassionate and recognizing that their policy hurt someone. Imagine how a reliable Democrat voter must feel when they're victimized in that way and their own party doesn't care. I'm not getting into immigration policy as a whole but I don't think it is unfair to characterize the Democrat party as choosing illegal aliens' rights to be secure from ICE overs those who are victimized by criminal illegal aliens. As far as my personal policy would go, I don't support attempting to deport millions of people.

So open borders it is, then?

RJ is on the money. I would arrest the same illegals for DUI every week, but they kept staying in the area because we were a proto-sanctuary county (this was before the statewide law). There was no way to punish them. They would sit in the cooler for a day then be released. They didn't have a drivers license so it couldn't be revoked. Their unregistered car would be impounded but it was usually a POS and they would just leave it in impound and get another POS from someplace. It was really disheartening knowing I couldn't do anything and that eventually someone was going to needlessly die and it could have been avoided.

Then maybe don't break the ****ing law huh

I am not sure I place the blame on law enforcement for following the law. If anything it's the sanctuary cities who are prolonging the existence of a bad law by undermining its consistent enforcement (Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly").

Who is to blame? In my opinion, it's the employers who hired the illegal immigrants in the first place.

Again, unless there are some numbers which suggest this is happening at staggering levels, I think stopping ICE from wrecking people for small offenses is a good thing.

The compassionate alternative is to make America such a ****hole that nobody wants to live there anymore. Congress has been executing this policy effectively for the past 40 years, but unfortunately American businesses have been making the rest of the world a ****hole even faster so it hasn’t worked as well as expected.

So next time you break a law, I'll send you to the Congo with the clothes on your back, yeah?

I didn't place blame on law enforcement.



Democrat policies hurt fewer people, but the people who aren't being hurt are illegal immigrants. Your policy hurts immigrants, but that's okay because they're subhuman.



No, I've already said in this thread I'm fine with deporting people who commit serious crimes. As in, crimes with victims that are substantial in nature. Violence, sexual violence, any theft above petty theft, serious drug trafficking. But not small drug possession or petty theft.

I am not saying it can't be a good thing overall. Just understand what's happening here: Democratic politicians taking the law into their own hands. Having the moral high ground is not a substitute for legislating in a democracy, so the infamy Democrats are earning here shouldn't come as a surprise.

You make it sound like we don't know where the immigration is coming from.

That sounds reasonable. Not exactly following the law, but OK.

Anyway, the crackdown should be less on the people who break the law by entering the country, than on those who employ them illegally (almost certainly while knowing better but of course choosing to do so anyway purely out of greed).

FYI, what I said is what sanctuary cities do. They still deport immigrants with a violent past. Duh? They just don't give ICE full reign over how they enforce laws.

State's rights and all.

Fine, rural Louisiana then.

There are felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. Misdemeanors and felonies send you to jail (or back to "the Congo"). Infractions earn you a citation and send you on your merry way home. Simple.

The part you're forgetting is that they've already broken the law. They're trespassing. If you break into someone's house to steal a beer and get arrested, you don't get to complain that "all you did was steal a beer."

FYIW, I've heard the worst stories about how the United States processes legal immigration. I don't know if it's the people who choose to work there, the culture, or the law, but apparently they treat pretty much everybody who is not a citizen like trash.

I can't speak for everywhere, but everyone in my jail got treated like trash. It's not supposed to be pleasant.
"Don't like the food? Don't come to jail."
"Don't like the bed? Don't come to jail."
"Don't like the orange pajamas? Don't come to jail."

No, I'm talking about U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Not for people who broke any law, but simply want to immigrate legally.

The part you're forgetting is the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. I know technically it doesn't apply, but, you know, it doesn't seem reasonable to treat people who live and work in America as not worthy of fair treatment just because of that alone.

Although apparently you can keep a blog!

American prisons are barbaric and out of line.

Have you ever looked into how cruel solitary confinement is?

Unless the United States is being advertised as a land of open borders, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the immigrants are at least in part responsible for the hardship associated with being deported, seeing that they chose to come here in the first place (and traveling just as far, I may add)? There could certainly be exceptions for those whose situation back home is dire enough to warrant granting them refugee status, though.

Funny how I am playing the conservative here. But I think the crux of the matter is the question of whether or not it is moral to follow the law under an immoral government (to which Reid's answer is pretty clear by now).

I've never worked or even been in a prison. I wouldn't know. The jail where I worked had no solitary confinement.

I mean, it kinda is. If you read the Statue of Liberty's plaque or whatever.



Why would going through the great effort and expense to travel here and start anew make them deserving of punishments far worse than citizens receive?

I mean, other than "it's illlleeeegal".

It's "the culture", and by "the culture" I'm not talking about law enforcement, I'm talking about the United States as whole.

Most countries operate immigration for the purpose of human migration. That is, most countries are very selective: the goal is to grow the body politic, and in order to do it well, you want to add only the best candidates. In order to live and work in such countries, then, you'll often need to be young, healthy, fluent in an official language, and possessing advanced skills. Once you're in the country, though, you'll most likely be allowed to stay for the rest of your life if you want.

The United States, on the other hand, operates immigration for the purpose of making money.

Illegal immigration is broadly tolerated as a source of inexpensive workers with no legal rights. This part is obvious even to Americans.

Legal immigration is the more complicated part. Legal immigration almost entirely takes the form of fixed-term work visas, tied to a single employer. These visas are not available to people who are interested in staying in the US permanently, so if you apply for a green card while you're in the US, you can't ever get another one of these visas again. That means, if you want to stay in the US, you're stuck working for one company until you get your green card. If you quit or get fired, you are instantly out of status (i.e. an illegal), you have to flee the country, your green card application is cancelled, and you realistically can never try again. You're basically a slave to the company that brought you in, at least until you win the green card lottery or you save up enough money to move back.


If you want to talk seriously about immigration reform, the American culture toward immigrants is where you need to start.

OK, so whether or not the workers immigrate legally or illegally, in either case they are slaves to their employer.

yep

whoa weird it's like there's some connection between the American economy and slavery

I am just saying, it's somewhat facetious to call it a punishment, because, assuming the person entering the country was aware of the law, they basically brought it upon themselves. Of course, I am not saying we should necessarily deport them just because of this.

Of course, yeah, there's no reason we have to be as nasty as we possibly can to immigrants who come here against the law (Statue of Liberty inscription, etc.)

I don't think it's not a punishment if they knew it could happen beforehand.

Or, you know, lawfully.

Or, you know, citizens who already live there.


Remember that time there was a certain law that made employment slightly less compulsory and Republican congressmen **** blood over it? Hey guys, sorry to break it to y'all, but they ain't in this fight for you. If it were up to them you'd be a shock collar.

That would probably be a good idea. In this case, because my motivation for nitpicking with Reid was that some of the things he said raised my eyebrows when it became clear that his rhetoric would really piss off a lot of voters. But it would certainly be nice to change attitudes toward immigration in general instead of catering to conservatives in order to win elections.

Sorry if this is asinine, but: if I trek through ten miles of rural private property to invade some billionaire's home, is it a "punishment" if I am caught and dumped where I started?

Because as far as I'm concerned, the punishment is the fine I pay for breaking the law. It's my own doing that I walked all that distance for nothing.

First off, most immigrants are not "dumped where they started", they're dumped off god knows where in some random place in Mexico. That's why the "you stole a bicycle, now get dumped off in Montana" metaphor works. Second, in your hypothesis, it'd be more apt if you had a financial stake in the billionaire's home. Because immigrants become estranged from their property. Often, the personal belongings just get thrown out when they obviously fail to make their rent payments. So it'd be if you brought all your stuff and the billionaire burned it all.

Yes, yes, I know the analogy isn't perfect. And I don't even think we need to be so cruel as to view people as mere trespassers rather than having lives that would be uprooted. But I still think they somewhat brought their situation upon themselves, so I'm not sure if we can apply the Eight Amendment. That said, if they're being dumped in some random ass place far away from where they entered the country, then yeah that might count in my opinion.

If someone knows that stealing a piece of gum will result in them being vaporized, it's not enough to say "they knew it so they brought it on themselves" when they get vaporized. I don't get that line of reasoning. It's about proportional punishment for the crime.