Making America Great Again - another innocent shot dead

[bill4long]

The question Res added is relevant.

I agree. As for the answer, I'm not sure. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it except with regards to political shift. Given the news recently it's come to the forefront in my interest. Although your old comment seems like a good starting point for discussion.

Don't be paranoid. I'm not trying to zing anyone. As if I could anyway.

[canpakes]

Don't be paranoid. I'm not trying to zing anyone. As if I could anyway.

What do you mean that I’m paranoid? How do you know ??!?

: D

[Some Schmo]

They can't define "woke." They can't define "progressive." They can't define "communist." They certainly can't define "competent."

It turns out they haven't thought about what it means to be "an illegal" either.

Funny, I thought it was simple: dark skin.

[Res Ipsa]

Most Americans are opposed to illegal immigration in the abstract, but not in the concrete, when the offenders are their friends and neighbors.

Interesting. I'll check into it.

Are you of the opinion there is no illegal immigration problem at all?

No. I think there are several problems with illegal immigration. One is that making immigration without permission a crime creates more crime, just like prohibition creates more crime in the form of mob-controlled liquor import and distribution. During Trump’s first term, his border policies raised the profitability of smuggling people across the border. The increase in profitability drew cartels into the business of human smuggling, with all the other crime that goes along with cartel operations.

The problem is similar to the effect of the war on drugs. Restricting the supply of drugs raises their price, attracting cartels and gangs into the market, with the associated crime and violence. In effect, making drug sales and use a crime creates more crime, including violent crime.

So that’s one problem with illegal immigration. It’s what they call a wicked problem, as there are plenty of good reasons for a government to control immigration. But it needs to be considered, as criminalizing immigration could potentially result in increasing overall crime, including violent crime.

A second problem is elemental fairness. We have systems that allow legal immigration, including refugee and asylum laws. Jumping to the head of the line is unfair to those who went through the lawful process and waited their turn. Fairness is, in my opinion, always a valid concern in creating and enforcing laws.

A third problem is similar to the broken windows theory. in my opinion, unenforced laws breed disrespect for laws in general. So, having immigration laws but not enforcing them is, in my opinion, a general problem.

Another problem is the cost of enforcement. The marginal cost of enforcement increases as the number of deportations rise. Perfectly sealing the borders and removing everyone here without permission would almost certainly cost more than taxpayers would pay.

Finally, there is the general problem in the case of the US that both political parties have kicked the immigration can down the road for so long, there are people here without permission that it makes no sense to remove. It’s similar to the fairness considerations reflected in statutes of limitations that apply to most crimes.

I’m sure there are more, but those are the ones that spring to mind.

Do you think illegal immigrant felons should be deported? The really bad stuff. Drug trafficking, human trafficking, gang activity, and the like.

It depends. The easiest case for me is the alien who illegally enters the country for the purpose of committing crimes. Gang members who illegally enter for the purpose of selling drugs, human trafficking, etc. If they have committed crimes, we should try them and, if convicted, should incarcerate them. It may be possible to negotiate with their home countries to serve their sentences there, but that could be dicey. After serving their sentence, they should be deported.

The hardest case is someone brought here involuntarily as a child. Children don’t have the mental capacity to commit a crime, so it was not a crime for them to enter. As they have little to no connection to their country of origin, I see little justification to sending them back to a country they have no ties to.

In between are a range of cases that I don’t have strong opinions about. I’d be inclined to set something like a statute of limitations. If the person kept his nose clean for X years, I’d be inclined to just have him serve his sentence here. But, for the violent crimes you mention, I would be fine with deportation after serving his sentence.

What about illegal immigrants who are engaged in drug possession, OWI, robbery, burglary, assault?

I’m not inclined to deport for drug possession or most misdemeanors. I don’t know what OWI stands for. Is it Operating While Intoxicated? If so, I wouldn’t be inclined to deport for that, unless we get into vehicular homicide territory.

I’d be inclined to treat violent crimes, robbery and assault, the same way as the more serious crimes. I’m less certain about property crimes. Maybe treat all felony property crimes the same as violent crimes.

None of this is to say that committing serious crimes is the only cause for deportation. Like the statute of limitations, the feds should have a window during which they can remove anyone here without permission (after being given fire process and adjudication of any asylum claims, etc.). But after X years, given a record clean of any of the serious crimes defined above, I’d take deportation off the table.

That’s lots of line drawing, and I’m not in love with the location of any particular line, but that should give you the general idea.

by the way, I do not accept the notion that I’m required to come up with a comprehensive immigration system on my own as a prerequisite to criticizing aspects of our current system. I can identity something as wrong without a comprehensive alternative plan.

[Res Ipsa]

The question Res added is relevant.

I agree. As for the answer, I'm not sure. I haven't spent a lot of time thinking about it except with regards to political shift. Given the news recently it's come to the forefront in my interest. Although your old comment seems like a good starting point for discussion.

Don't be paranoid. I'm not trying to zing anyone. As if I could anyway.

in my opinion, “I don’t know” is a perfectly acceptable answer to my question. I don’t know either. It’s a complicated issue with no simple solution.

[Res Ipsa]

They can't define "woke." They can't define "progressive." They can't define "communist." They certainly can't define "competent."

It turns out they haven't thought about what it means to be "an illegal" either.

Funny, I thought it was simple: dark skin.

It’s not hard to define: someone physically present in the US without the permission of the federal government.

[Some Schmo]

It’s not hard to define: someone physically present in the US without the permission of the federal government.

Well sure, that's how you'd define it. I don't think that's the definition that makes MAGA lose their mind, however.

[Vēritās]

They can't define "woke." They can't define "progressive." They can't define "communist." They certainly can't define "competent."

It turns out they haven't thought about what it means to be "an illegal" either.

Funny, I thought it was simple: dark skin.

Don't forget Socialism or Christianity. Hell, they can't even define Conservative anymore.

[Gunnar]

I would guess that few, if any, are entirely free of hypocrisy, to at least some extent, but I think none of them are more blatantly and malignantly hypocritical and venial than Trump and his sycophantic, MAGA Republican loyalists and appointees. I think politicians like Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jasmine Crockett, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are less hypocritical and more honest than any of the Republicans currently at the federal level.

Interesting. I'm interested in how you have come to that conclusion.

Question: what would you do to solve the illegal immigration problem?

I couldn't answer your question nearly as well as RI, Canpakes et al, so I greatly appreciate their contributions to this discussion. I hope you are content with that. There is no doubt that immigration issues can be handled much more justly and compassionately than the Trump administration is willing to do. Nor is there any reasonable doubt that Trump and his minions' approach to this issue is more motivated by bigotry and their own egos and self-interest than anything else.

[Vēritās]

I think it was a tragedy, but no more of a tragedy than the death of Ashley Babbit.

Ashley Babbit was breaking the law and was warned multiple times.

If you value your life, don't bring a gun to a protest and then procede obstruct a lawful arrest of an illegal immigrant

There was no illegal immigrant in the vicinity, and there was no obstruction of any arrest being made. Only human garbage can walk away from viewing the facts and still arrive at that conclusion.

then fight the police while refusing lawful orders

He wasn't fighting the police, he was simply recording the ICE thugs which is his legal right. The only time he didn't mind his own business was when he saw an innocent woman being assaulted by an ICE thug and he tried to help her up. He had his back to the agent but they sprayed them both and then proceeded to beat him on the ground.

ICE officers are not law enforcement they are paid thugs many of whom were pardoned by Trump during the failed Jan 6th insurrection but their jurisdiction is confined strictly to immigration related matters. They can't intervene with traffic violations or strip Americans of their rights just because they're fragile snowflakes who are on power trips, wearing masks and feeling like they have all the power in the world. This is why they escalate matters over the smallest of things, like someone saying something that offends them.

If you have a gun, you put your hands up and tell the officer that you have a gun

Actually no, the police are the ones who regularly ask people if they have a weapon on them because that is their policy. There is no obligation on his part to say anything, especially since he was not under arrest and had not committed any crime.

You don't fight the police and expect to come out unscathed.

So in your world, bending down and covering up as a half dozen rednecks beat on you is what you call "fighting the police?" Yeah, you're just as dumb and disgusting as you ever were.

Obstructing arrests and border enforcement is not peaceful protest.

There was no obstruction, and and repeating Brietbart's lies won't make them true.

It's a crime. It's against the law.

Literally everything these ICE thugs are doing is against the law. That's why they wear masks, because they know that once Trump is out of office they're all going to jail. So please, stop pretending you care about the law. Republicans have no principles and stand for nothing other than fearmongering about the Left. Second amendment? That's only for protesters like Kyle Rittenhouse whom you deemed a hero.

Donald Trump said they were going to peacefully march at Congress.

They did "march" peacefully. And they they did what he told them to do, which was "fight like hell." And by the way, why did Trump remove the MAGS so the Jan 6th protesters could bring guns?

The Minneapolis mayor told ICE to get the F out of Minneapolis.

Yes, and they should because they are a lawless group of racist pricks like yourself who are murdering US citizens.

Democrat governors have spoken to give permission for protesters to fire on ICE agents. How is that not inciting an insurrection?

A question too stupid to even answer.