Can we agree on a couple of things around the immigration issue?
Can we agree that those who immigrate to the US by any means other then the prescribed legal process have committed a violation of US law?
Can we agree than those who violate US law should face some degree of consequence?
Can we agree that those who violate US law should not be treated more preferentially than those who do not?
Can we agree that anyone who commits more than X (I believe that we all agreed on one a while back) felonies should be incarcerated for a lengthy period, and that any additional violent felonies after incarceration should result in an even more extended incarceration?
Can we agree that those who entered the US in violation of US law, and who have committed at least one violent felony (or have any conviction more serious than a minor traffic violation), should be deported?
Can we agree that an illegal alien who had been involved in two drunk driving accidents (without having a valid driver's license), who killed an mother and severely injured two others, who had a legal detainer order the day after the crash, was arrested for vehicular homocide, should have been turned over to ICE instead of being released onto the streets of MPLS?
10 comments:
Can we agree that those who immigrate to the US by any means other then the prescribed legal process have committed a violation of US law?
No.
1. Immigration is a complicated process with a great deal of sometimes vague nuance. Something you should know about.
2. MOST of the time, if and when a violation occurs, it's at the misdemeanor level. A speeding ticket. A minor infraction.
A. Can we agree that a misdemeanor is NOT a major or always intentional "crime." It's the accidentally sneaking up to 62mph in a 55mph zone. It's a missed appointment. It's NOT an intentional murder, for instance or a deliberate sexual assault of a woman, for instance... Can we agree to that?
B. Can we agree that the VAST majority of immigrants and refugees are not seeking to do harm, but rather, just seeking safety and a better way of life?
C. In other words, do you accept reality?
3. Can we agree that misdemeanors with no intent to cause harm should NOT be treated like, for instance, the crime of a man abusing his wealth and privilege to run scams and enrich himself or to be a sexual predator of women and girls?
Craig....
Can we agree than those who violate US law should face some degree of consequence?
Proportionate to the crime or misdemeanor do e, yes. Do YOU agree that someone with 30 felonies and a sexual assault finding against him should, at the very least, face the penalty of not being elected to a national office?
You see, you continue to strain out gnats and swallow camels and your collective hypocrisy is obvious to all but the deluded useful idiots.
Wake up, sir.
I've answered a couple of your questions clearly and directly.
I'll give you a chance to catch up.
Well, thank goodness that US immigration law isn't based on whether or not Dan agrees with it.
1. Irrelevant.
2. So, yes you do agree that failure to properly follow US immigration laws does violate US immigration law. That you want to make excuses for the reality of that violation is immaterial.
2A, irrelevant. A violation of US law is a violation of US law. If you go 56 in a 55 zone, you've violated the law of the jurisdiction that set the speed limit.
2B. Absent ironclad, objective, proof from every one of the 10,000,000 plus who came in during Biden's administration and the millions before that, no.
2C. No. I do not accept that you can make excuses and vague claims and define "reality". Especially as you've actually agreed that failing to follow US immigration law, does violate US immigration law.
3. Why would I agree with such a nonsensical comment so completely unrelated to the actual post. I might be able to agree that you have a reading comprehension problem or are so entrenched in your silo as to be willfully blind to the rest of the world.
Again, you do agree that those who violate US law should face "consequences", you just chose to ignore what I actually wrote. . You just want some sort of unilateral control over what those consequences might be.
Your obsession with, and confusion about, Trump's legal situation is disturbing for someone who bases so much of his credibility on it.
1. Trump's "convictions" were the result of ONE action, that was entered into an accounting ledger 35 times. Are you saying that prosecuting someone 35 times for one action is appropriate?
2. NY law was changed specifically to allow for this novel legal approach.
3. Multiple left wing legal scholars have denounced the prosecution and noted that Biden using the NY AG to prosecute his political rival is beyond the bounds of legal or political precedent.
4. The "sexual assault" was a CIVIL verdict which has a significantly lower burden of proof that does a criminal charge. The accuser waited far past the statute of limtations to mention this and was unable to remember even the most basic of details accurately. Again NY CHANGED THEIR LAW specifically to allow this one suit, then changed it back once the suit was over.
None of this has any relationship to the topic of this post, it's been explained to you many times in the past, and once again now. Using this as a diversion or an excuse to justify criminal illegal aliens, is forbidden from here on out. You can add it to the very short list of things that will get your comments aborted.
Your delusion is showing.
I’ll do more detail later, but if the “it’s not really a crime” argument is to be taken seriously then the “no due process “ argument loses its validity.
Not to mention that expedited removal has been due process since the ‘90a.
Y'all done got the Boss angry.
https://youtu.be/wWKSoxG1K7w?si=Mm4x_JGp2Rv9w4Gt
One more old, rich, white, liberal, cosplaying. I guess he’s gotta try to stay relevant.
I think it's pretty clear that Dan has a hot and passionate man-crush on Donald Trump.
Well, we heard from the stupid, the dishonest, the hateful, the America-hating disgrace embracing Dan Trabue. Now I'll provide some truth and common sense.
I agree with most of what you said. How could I not given the common sense of it. Yet even where I disagree, common sense exists but with this caveat:
Illegally crossing our border is crime enough to justify deportation. We don't have to wait for one single additional crime of any degree of potential harm in order to send them back. There's no such thing as an accidental crossing, all the way up to even even just Chula Vista. Illegals know they're in breach of our immigration laws. They do it anyway. That's called "malice aforethought"..."premeditation". The same is true of visa overstays. They know full well the expiration of their visa and it's up to them to apply for its renewal (if there is such a thing).
Little Danny whines about the process. Boo-hoo. That's no excuse for allowing any illegal to stay, and further whining about fleeing danger ignores the avenues available to such people.
Those who regard the laws as too difficult or time consuming can work to amend the laws. Those who use the difficulty as an excuse to aid and abet law-breakers are themselves law-breakers and are equally deserving of consequences, and considering it's a traitorous act to aid and abet invaders, those consequences should be severe.
As I noted earlier, per the precedent set during every previous presidential administration, due process for illegally crossing the border is deportation. Expedited removal has been the due process since the '90s.
What Dan chooses to ignore is that it's only the first illegal crossing that is a misdemeanor. After one, it's a felony. So, by the logic applied by literally every DFL officeholder prior to Biden, illegal alien felons should absolutely be deported. When you then add additional crimes (felonies or misdemeanors) to that initial crime, it just compounds the offense.
If, as Dan wants to argue, one illegal entry is not a real crime, then no due process is involved in dealing with the entry. First illegal entry, expedited return. No 'crime", no punishment. Under what novel legal theory would one advocate for "due process" when there was no "crime" committed?
Notwithstanding that, the US does have "due process" for those who wish to immigrate. If one skips that "due process" on the way into the country, by what standard does one claim "due process" for being removed.
AGAIN, expedited removal IS due process.
I agree. The "due process" argument they use is just a whine, not actual law.
It's a convenient phrase, which has a specific legal meaning, that they've weaponized to mean anything and everything they need it to mean. That "due process" is being followed as it has for decades is immaterial. That Dan and his ilk need a rhetorical weapon goes without saying. That they don't know what they're talking about is a given. When emotions drive you, it's challenging.
As we've seen with the contextual video of Pretti and how his out of control, emotional outbursts, give so much context to his interactions with ICE.
Post a Comment