The Church Has Spoken on Immigration Policy

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

Funny that the statement made by the church came out only a few hours after this trib commentary.     

Commentary: The LDS Church’s silence on Trump’s family separation policy is deafening

Never mind.

 

I should like to point out that it isn't Trump's policy. This was the policy in place before he was elected, and it has been the policy for quite some time.  The last judicial action on the subject was in 2016, during Obama's administration, but the original law was enacted decades ago. It's just been enforced spottily.  Naturally, the big furor has erupted because the media hates Trump, but it was unnoticed during the previous administration, which was approved by the media. I suggest watching this video, which seems to be even-handed about it. Sorry about the in-video ads, but your network TV has them, too.

Is Trump Tearing Children From Their Parents?

If you're not interested in watching this (it's nearly an hour long, but the relevant part is only about a half hour), I'll try to summarize the law.

If you cross the border illegally and are caught with a child, you have to be taken into custody.  The law doesn't permit jailing children for the offenses of their parents (or whoever happens to be carrying a child, whether or not it's theirs), so they are separated temporarily. Their parents are put through proceedings in connection with the illegal entry, and if they plead guilty they are quickly reunited with their children, and the entire family is repatriated across the border.  If the parents or parent claims asylum, then this takes longer to adjudicate, and the child is left in the custody of the department of health and human services (HHS), not ICE, or if possible, put into the custody of relatives in the US.  

An important point to make is that not all of these children are the children of the people who are claiming to be their parents -- some are actually in danger because their apparent parents are actually their abductors.

Guess what happens when a mom and dad rob a bank and are caught?  They are separated from their children.  Any lawbreaker suffers the consequences of their actions, and if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't rob banks.  But unless these illegal border crossers have to be held for more egregious crimes (like being wanted for some felony), the government tries to get the families back together as soon as possible and sent back home.  

I am acquainted with a family that has a similar problem to these folks, except possibly worse.  The mom is Brenda, a US citizen by birth, and she married an illegal immigrant from Mexico.  They had two kids.  He was eventually caught and sent back to Mexico.  Because by that point he had been caught and sent back to Mexico three previous times, he is  ineligible to apply for legal immigration.  The only way his US citizen kids can be with their father is when they go to Mexico for a visit.  They can come back, he cannot.  The whole situation is sad and regrettable. But this was the consequence of breaking the law -- over and over again.  Brenda speaks Spanish quite well, so there's no reason she couldn't immigrate to Mexico so she could be with her husband, and her children with their father.  But she doesn't, and I don't know why. Possibly because Mexico is a pit?  Why else would so many people trying be to go north? And risk possibly being separated from their children?

But what is it?  Should the law be changed because when people commit illegal acts it causes them difficulties?  I'm pretty sure that the law can be changed to make things more gentle, like having more detention facilities that permit children to remain with their parent (IF they are the parents). They do have some such facilities, but not enough.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2018 by Stargazer

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Maedros said:

How do you (as a parent) put your children through such trauma knowing full well that you will separated from them or rather that they will be separated from you? How man? How? What kind of parents are these? Is poverty so grinding that you'd rather traumatize your kids for a piece of bread? Is it really that bad in Mexico and how in heavens name do they get through Mexico from further South? What is the Mexican government doing about it? How is it an American issue, geez, no one is criticizing Mexico or Latin American governments and parents. 

Some of them are fleeing from the worst danger, seeking asylum. I don't know that they're aware of the new inhuman policies the current administration has enacted, until it's too late.

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I should like to point out that it isn't Trump's policy. This was the policy in place before he was elected, and it has been the policy for quite some time.  The last judicial action on the subject was in 2016, during Obama's administration, but the original law was enacted decades ago. It's just been enforced spottily.  Naturally, the big furor has erupted because the media hates Trump, but it was unnoticed during the previous administration, which was approved by the media. I suggest watching this video, which seems to be even-handed about it. Sorry about the in-video ads, but your network TV has them, too.

Is Trump Tearing Children From Their Parents?

 

 

False. This is trump's policy.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-policy-separating-children-border-cbp-dhs-2018-6

[Rajah Manchou]

56 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I suggest watching this video, which seems to be even-handed about it. Sorry about the in-video ads, but your network TV has them, too.

Ben Shapiro is even-handed about nothing. From the first 12 seconds, its obvious.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[Stargazer]

54 minutes ago, Gray said:

False. This is trump's policy.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-policy-separating-children-border-cbp-dhs-2018-6

Yeah, sort of, but sort of not.  Depends upon what you call "policy".

It's only Trump's policy because he's the President and he is tasked with enforcing the laws of the United States.  When Bush and Obama were president, they were also tasked to enforce this law, and so you can say it was their policy to either enforce it or not. My question is, should presidents only enforce the laws they like?  

I'm curious. Did you watch the video? 

From your own link:

"Unauthorized border crossings have always been illegal, but previous administrations did not criminally prosecute all border crossers the way Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has."

In the past, not all border crossers were criminally prosecuted -- even though their actions were criminal.  Selective enforcement of the law is always a good idea, right?  This encouraged them to do it over and over again.  Was Trump serious about enforcing the law?  He said he was. Do you fault him for enforcing the laws of the United States?

By the way, when I ran for a political office, my city council, I was told by a friend who was a commissioned police officer that if I won the office I would be safe from getting traffic tickets -- because my city's police department would not cite city council members.  Meaning I could freely ignore parking meters, speed laws, and so on.  Great deal, right?  Would you consider that a laudable policy of law enforcement?

For your benefit, since I edited my post between the time you responded and I edited it, I'll repeat the edit here. I decided that few were going to watch the video (the TL;DR principle), and thought I would summarize a little of what the video said.

---------------------

If you're not interested in watching this (it's nearly an hour long, but the relevant part is only about a half hour), I'll try to summarize the law.

If you cross the border illegally and are caught with a child, you have to be taken into custody.  The law doesn't permit jailing children for the offenses of their parents (or whoever happens to be carrying a child, whether or not it's theirs), so they are separated temporarily. Their parents are put through proceedings in connection with the illegal entry, and if they plead guilty they are quickly reunited with their children, and the entire family is repatriated across the border.  If the parents or parent claims asylum, then this takes longer to adjudicate, and the child is left in the custody of the department of health and human services (HHS), not ICE, or if possible, put into the custody of relatives in the US.  

An important point to make is that not all of these children are the children of the people who are claiming to be their parents -- some are actually in danger because their apparent parents are actually their abductors.

Guess what happens when a mom and dad rob a bank and are caught?  They are separated from their children.  Any lawbreaker suffers the consequences of their actions, and if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't rob banks.  But unless these illegal border crossers have to be held for more egregious crimes (like being wanted for some felony), the government tries to get the families back together as soon as possible and sent back home.  

I am acquainted with a family that has a similar problem to these folks, except possibly worse.  The mom is Brenda, a US citizen by birth, and she married an illegal immigrant from Mexico.  They had two kids.  He was eventually caught and sent back to Mexico.  Because by that point he had been caught and sent back to Mexico three previous times, he is  ineligible to apply for legal immigration.  The only way his US citizen kids can be with their father is when they go to Mexico for a visit.  They can come back, he cannot.  The whole situation is sad and regrettable. But this was the consequence of breaking the law -- over and over again.  Brenda speaks Spanish quite well, so there's no reason she couldn't immigrate to Mexico so she could be with her husband, and her children with their father.  But she doesn't, and I don't know why. Possibly because Mexico is a pit?  Why else would so many people trying be to go north? And risk possibly being separated from their children?

But what is it?  Should the law be changed because when people commit illegal acts it causes them difficulties?  I'm pretty sure that the law can be changed to make things more gentle, like having more detention facilities that permit children to remain with their parent (IF they are the parents). They do have some such facilities, but not enough.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Stargazer

[Gray]

24 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Yeah, sort of, but sort of not.  Depends upon what you call "policy".

It's only Trump's policy because he's the President and he is tasked with enforcing the laws of the United States.  When Bush and Obama were president, they were also tasked to enforce this law, and so you can say it was their policy to either enforce it or not. My question is, should presidents only enforce the laws they like?  

I'm curious. Did you watch the video? 

From your own link:

"Unauthorized border crossings have always been illegal, but previous administrations did not criminally prosecute all border crossers the way Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has."

In the past, not all border crossers were criminally prosecuted -- even though their actions were criminal.  Selective enforcement of the law is always a good idea, right?  This encouraged them to do it over and over again.  Was Trump serious about enforcing the law?  He said he was. Do you fault him for not honoring his oath as President?

By the way, when I ran for a political office, my city council, I was told by a friend who was a commissioned police officer that if I won the office I would be safe from getting traffic tickets -- because my city's police department would not cite city council members.  Meaning I could freely ignore parking meters, speed laws, and so on.  Great deal, right?  Would you consider that a laudable policy of law enforcement?

For your benefit, since I edited my post between the time you responded and I edited it, I'll repeat the edit here. I decided that few were going to watch the video (the TL;DR principle), and thought I would summarize a little of what the video said.

---------------------

If you're not interested in watching this (it's nearly an hour long, but the relevant part is only about a half hour), I'll try to summarize the law.

If you cross the border illegally and are caught with a child, you have to be taken into custody.  The law doesn't permit jailing children for the offenses of their parents (or whoever happens to be carrying a child, whether or not it's theirs), so they are separated temporarily. Their parents are put through proceedings in connection with the illegal entry, and if they plead guilty they are quickly reunited with their children, and the entire family is repatriated across the border.  If the parents or parent claims asylum, then this takes longer to adjudicate, and the child is left in the custody of the department of health and human services (HHS), not ICE, or if possible, put into the custody of relatives in the US.  

An important point to make is that not all of these children are the children of the people who are claiming to be their parents -- some are actually in danger because their apparent parents are actually their abductors.

Guess what happens when a mom and dad rob a bank and are caught?  They are separated from their children.  Any lawbreaker suffers the consequences of their actions, and if you don't want to be separated from your children, don't rob banks.  But unless these illegal border crossers have to be held for more egregious crimes (like being wanted for some felony), the government tries to get the families back together as soon as possible and sent back home.  

I am acquainted with a family that has a similar problem to these folks, except possibly worse.  The mom is Brenda, a US citizen by birth, and she married an illegal immigrant from Mexico.  They had two kids.  He was eventually caught and sent back to Mexico.  Because by that point he had been caught and sent back to Mexico three previous times, he is  ineligible to apply for legal immigration.  The only way his US citizen kids can be with their father is when they go to Mexico for a visit.  They can come back, he cannot.  The whole situation is sad and regrettable. But this was the consequence of breaking the law -- over and over again.  Brenda speaks Spanish quite well, so there's no reason she couldn't immigrate to Mexico so she could be with her husband, and her children with their father.  But she doesn't, and I don't know why. Possibly because Mexico is a pit?  Why else would so many people trying be to go north? And risk possibly being separated from their children?

But what is it?  Should the law be changed because when people commit illegal acts it causes them difficulties?  I'm pretty sure that the law can be changed to make things more gentle, like having more detention facilities that permit children to remain with their parent (IF they are the parents). They do have some such facilities, but not enough.

There is no law that mandates prosecution for legal or illegal border crossing. By Trump electing to enact a "zero tolerance" policy and going through the slow, expensive process of prosecution rather than deportation (which is fast, cheap, and doesn't separate kids from families), he has created this crisis. He is also separating children from people seeking legal asylum.

Do you feel that all misdemeanors should result in the separation of children from families? Common misdemeanors include reckless driving, discharging a firearm in city limits, and trespass.

Let's not pretend this is about law and order. Trump is not a law and order president - he behaves lawlessly at every turn, and he constantly attacks law enforcement. He is specifically targeting children to achieve two outcomes:

1) Discourage immigration on the southern border through the mistreatment of children

2) Blackmail congress into giving him his wall.

 

Also, I didn't watch the youtube video. I'm not into watching radical youtube pundits. No offense. I will read stuff by reasonable conservatives.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Gray

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Ben Shapiro is even-handed about nothing. From the first 12 seconds, its obvious.

Ben Shapiro is an open conservative, and makes no pretention of being neutral.  But he dumps on Republicans when he considers them wrong.  I consider someone even-handed if they can honestly consider an opponents point of view without resorting to name-calling as an argument.  I've watched enough Shapiro videos (including Q&A sessions, where he asks that opponents be given preference in speaking) to be able to see that he is willing to honestly and civilly discuss matters. A trait that is rare in today's increasing uncivil discourse.  That's what I mean by "even-handed". 

Question: do even-handed commentators have to agree with you on every point to be considered "even-handed"? 

Did you watch those first 12 seconds gradually boiling over until steam started coming off?  And then did you hit the pause button, never to return?  If so, I would consider you to be non-even-handed, if you can't or won't listen to someone with whom you disagree.

The whole point of posting that video, Rajah, was to provide a counterpoint to the narrative, and especially to provide some facts not filtered through leftist bias -- which conveniently leaves out facts that do not fit the narrative.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Stargazer said:

Ben Shapiro is an open conservative, and makes no pretention of being neutral.  But he dumps on Republicans when he considers them wrong.  I consider someone even-handed if they can honestly consider an opponents point of view without resorting to name-calling as an argument.  I've watched enough Shapiro videos (including Q&A sessions, where he asks that opponents be given preference in speaking) to be able to see that he is willing to honestly and civilly discuss matters. A trait that is rare in today's increasing uncivil discourse.  That's what I mean by "even-handed". 

Question: do even-handed commentators have to agree with you on every point to be considered "even-handed"? 

Did you watch those first 12 seconds gradually boiling over until steam started coming off?  And then did you hit the pause button, never to return?  If so, I would consider you to be non-even-handed, if you can't or won't listen to someone with whom you disagree.

The whole point of posting that video, Rajah, was to provide a counterpoint to the narrative, and especially to provide some facts not filtered through leftist bias -- which conveniently leaves out facts that do not fit the narrative.  

 

Just out of curiosity, do you accept the church's position on immigration?

If not, do you view your sharing your opinions of disagreement as being a disloyal or loyal opposition?

[Rajah Manchou]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Ben Shapiro is an open conservative, and makes no pretention of being neutral.  But he dumps on Republicans when he considers them wrong.  I consider someone even-handed if they can honestly consider an opponents point of view without resorting to name-calling as an argument. 

I'd consider that even-handed too.
But you are talking about the guy who wrote: 

(1) How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them
(2) Porn Generation: How Social Liberalism Is Corrupting Our Future
(3) Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV
(4) Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans

Nothing against Shapiro, and I do enjoy listening to him, but I don't listen expecting an even-handed or civil (not resorting to name-calling) approach to anything.

19 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Did you watch those first 12 seconds gradually boiling over until steam started coming off?  And then did you hit the pause button, never to return? 

No.

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The whole point of posting that video, Rajah, was to provide a counterpoint to the narrative, and especially to provide some facts not filtered through leftist bias -- which conveniently leaves out facts that do not fit the narrative.  

That's fine, and its good to get Shapiro's perspective on it. But you said the reason the big furor has erupted is because the media hates Trump. I think furor has erupted because the first report that most heard about this issue was about Federal officials losing track of nearly 1500 children, and some of those were turned over to smugglers or human traffickers. That's what bothers me about this story. If that reporting was untrue, or the result of leftist hatred, please let me know.

[Maidservant]

The other part of the issue is not only the separation but the conditions the children are kept in.

[Walden]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

My question is, should presidents only enforce the laws they like?  

They do enforce laws selectively, why do you think that marijuana is now legally consumed recreationally in multiple states and Trump has shown no intent to go after these states for these activities that are technically a federal offense?

Trump has chosen to enforce some laws over others, as has every other president ever.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I should like to point out that it isn't Trump's policy. This was the policy in place before he was elected, and it has been the policy for quite some time.  The last judicial action on the subject was in 2016, during Obama's administration, but the original law was enacted decades ago. It's just been enforced spottily.  Naturally, the big furor has erupted because the media hates Trump, but it was unnoticed during the previous administration, which was approved by the media. I suggest watching this video, which seems to be even-handed about it. Sorry about the in-video ads, but your network TV has them, too.

It has been a problem for a long time, it was a problem during the Bush administration, it was a problem during the Obama administration.

Just because trump is doing doesn't mean it's not still a problem.

 

[Danzo]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Also, I didn't watch the youtube video. I'm not into watching radical youtube pundits. No offense. I will read stuff by reasonable conservatives.

One of the problems with this issue is that people who call themselves conservatives, for some reason have adopted the big brother, big government, police state response to immigration instead of the small government, free market solution.

I don't really think these people understand or even know what the free market means.  If you give government the power to separate children from their families at the boarder for misdemeanors, you are giving the government the power to separate children from parents for other reasons reasons.   It's almost like they are too stupid to know that once you give government this kind of power,  it will be extremely difficult to take it away.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

There is no law that mandates prosecution for legal or illegal border crossing.

There is no law mandating prosecution for legal border crossing.  I can say that in full confidence!    I don't know if I can say the same for an illegal border crossing, however.   Can you?  I think a CFR for a negative statement like this is a request to prove a negative -- unless there's an explicit law that says there's no mandate.  Can you cite one?

I'd have to say that there is no law that mandates prosecution for exceeding the speed limit.  Should police officers be permitted to let people off on a charge of speeding?  Well, they can, and they do.  If your driving record looks good, perhaps he or she will let you off with a warning.  Or perhaps the officer had an argument with his or her spouse and is in a bad mood, and ain't letting anyone off anything tonight. But speeding is usually non-criminal -- if you look at the ticket the officer gives you, it is normally marked "Non-Criminal".  It is classified as an "Infraction", and though I would hate to have to cite law on the subject, since I am not a lawyer, and far from my sources, when a police officer pulls you over for a traffic infraction, he is in that case acting as an adjudicator under "administrative law" because as a holder of a license from the relevant  governmental agency, you are subject to the terms of that license, which are found in the Vehicle Code.  As an adjudicator he does have the right to dismiss the offense -- in effect you are in court at that moment, and the judge/adjudicator can dismiss the charge.  I wrote earlier that "selective enforcement" might not be a good thing, but I admit it's perfectly legal in the case of an infraction.

I don't know if there is a federal law mandating prosecution for a misdemeanor, which is what an illegal border crossing is.  I think I have heard that subsequent illegal border crossings are felonies -- which I think by definition must be prosecuted.  But I think that any prosecutor may decline to prosecute even felonies.  If the crime cannot reasonably be expected to be proven in a court.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

By Trump electing to enact a "zero tolerance" policy and going through the slow, expensive process of prosecution rather than deportation (which is fast, cheap, and doesn't separate kids from families), he has created this crisis. He is also separating children from people seeking legal asylum.

I gather that the process of prosecution in these cases is carried out quite quickly, and doesn't require lengthy separation, unless the parent is wanted for other crimes, or claims asylum. If the process is less palatable than simple deportation, and less convenient, perhaps there is a message that needs to be sent: "Stop crossing the border illegally!"

Are you sure about that latter case?  If you watched the video, Shapiro quotes or at least refers to the cases where a person shows up the point of entry and claims asylum.  They are not separated from their children, in that case, for one thing because they haven't broken the law.  But if they cross illegally, they have broken the law, and then claiming asylum is seen as a sham.  "I got caught, so now I'm going to try to sidestep the law by claiming something that may or may not be true, in the hope that that might derail my prosecution."  Does the police officer let you off from speeding just because you say that your speedometer is broken?

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Do you feel that all misdemeanors should result in the separation of children from families? Common misdemeanors include reckless driving, discharging a firearm in city limits, and trespass.

Are you aware that by definition a misdemeanor is classified as an offense that cannot result in an incarceration longer than a year?  An offense that can result in an incarceration of a year or more is a felony.  But you could theoretically be sentenced up to one year in jail for a misdemeanor, and this would naturally separate you from your children.  One of my sons pled guilty to misdemeanor reckless driving, and didn't serve a day in jail -- because his sentence was suspended for two years.  If he so much as got a parking ticket during that two years, the judge told him he was going to go to jail, but thankfully he kept his nose clean -- or at least didn't get caught.  

What you seem to want is for certain crimes to be treated as "catch and release".  You're entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ.

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Let's not pretend this is about law and order. Trump is not a law and order president - he behaves lawlessly at every turn, and he constantly attacks law enforcement.

So, you're saying that Trump doesn't care about law and order; he just hates children.  Is that what you're saying?

Further, what law has Trump broken?  I know he has offended people, including me; he is constantly saying stupid things, and has even done some stupid things, but to the best of my knowledge he has broken no laws.  Please don't try to bring up things for which there have been no indictment, let alone adjudication.  And attacking law enforcement? Even Obama did that, but were you complaining about it then?  

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

He is specifically targeting children to achieve two outcomes:

"Specifically targeting children" is a very fraught way to put it, is it not?  I'd entertain this claim as a possibility if the policy was to prosecute the illegals who had children with them, but not to prosecute those who didn't have children with them.  But that's not happening, is it?  Perhaps the Trump administration is specifically targeting illegal border crossers?  Or is that too neutral for you, and not sufficiently anti-Trump?

When the police jail offenders do you say that they are specifically targeting their children? Because surely they know about the kids, and know that if they are jailed the children have to be put into someone's custody, right?  It is true that the children are put into a bad place, but are they being put into a bad place because of Trump, or because of their own parents choie to break the law?  Is the Trump administration being cruel?  I understand that the Obama administration might have trod more lightly than Trump does in regard to this law. For some people Trump can do no wrong; for others he can do right.  I'm in the middle.  I believe he must enforce the laws, or else why do we even have laws?  If the current law seems unjust, or unnecessarily cruel, which it might be, then Congress can change the bloody law.  

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

1) Discourage immigration on the southern border through the mistreatment of children

It's all semantics for you people, isn't it? 

Children get mistreated on the southern border by the mere fact of their being dragged through the trackless desert by persons who appear to have no genuine interest in their welfare, as evidenced by those children who die from exposure due to improper preparation for the hazards, and potential abandonment by the very coyotes whom their parents paid exorbitantly to get them across, but who flee at the first sign of discovery.  Deaths along the southern border is a significant hazard to those children.  If you were to take your children on a desert trek across the Mojave desert without sufficient preparation, and without a means to call for help, and something happened to put them in jeopardy that could be traced to your negligence, law enforcement would come down on top of you like a ton of bricks, and your fight to get your kids back from Child Protective Services would be quite a sight to see.  So don't try to accuse Donald Trump of mistreating children.  

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

2) Blackmail congress into giving him his wall.

I find this uproaringly funny: "Blackmail congress into giving him his wall."  What are presidents supposed to do when Congress won't give them the laws that they want, or what is Congress supposed to do to get the President to sign a law he doesn't want?  Vetoes and overrides; poison pen clauses; vote trades; a thousand different strategies get deployed to accomplish what politicians want to get done.

And don't tell me that Trump is the first president to blackmail congress.  Every darned Congress that ever faced a hostile president, and every darned President who faced a hostile congress.  What you seem to believe is that when the side that you favor does what it needs to do to get its policies enacted that's fair dinkum, but when the other side does it, that's bloody murder.  Perhaps you're not so blind as that.

At least one President is trying to get done what he promised to do before he got elected.  At least Trump's trying his darnedest to build that wall.  I am ambivalent about whether it's a good idea or not, but I remember Obama and his closing of Guantanamo.  Good idea or not, he reneged on that without much in the way of fanfare.

You can make these kind of complaints about every governmental chief executive that has ever held office.  They will always rile up those who have an axe to grind.  You can only please part of the people; you can't please them all.

[Stargazer]

28 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It has been a problem for a long time, it was a problem during the Bush administration, it was a problem during the Obama administration.

Just because trump is doing doesn't mean it's not still a problem.

 

Of course not.  But the Left is reacting as if it were.  That's what drive me crazy.  

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course not.  But the Left is reacting as if it were.  That's what drive me crazy.  

I wish people wouldn't always feel they had to pick sides.  Its almost as if people try to consult Trump (or Hilary, or Obama) before they decide if they support something or not.

It's as if the reason that if Obama (or Trump, or Hillary) supported something then I have to be against it (or for it). 

"Once Trump (or Hilary, or Obama) has spoken, the thinking is done"

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I gather that the process of prosecution in these cases is carried out quite quickly,

Not really.  When you switch from civil to criminal the burden of proof is heightened to "beyond reasonable doubt".  Most civil deportation proceedings rely on "preponderance of the evidence:". Jury trial can also be requested (See the 6th amendment to the constitution).

Right to counsel is also required. There is a reason most people were subjected to civil deportation proceedings. They are much easier for the government.

[Stargazer]

48 minutes ago, Walden said:

They do enforce laws selectively, why do you think that marijuana is now legally consumed recreationally in multiple states and Trump has shown no intent to go after these states for these activities that are technically a federal offense?

Trump has chosen to enforce some laws over others, as has every other president ever.

That's true.  If Jeff Sessions had his way, they would indeed be prosecuting marijuana users in those states.  The law needs to be changed, however.  The problem with selective enforcement is that it inculcates disrespect for law in general. If a law is not to be enforced, it should either be repealed or modified to the point where its enforcement makes sense.

I don't necessarily consider selective enforcement to be always a bad thing.  But it often is.  And an unpopular law, one that seems unjust or is too severe, simply must be dealt with, not left up to discretion.

In the case of this current uproar over enforcement of border control laws, it cries out for modification, and I wouldn't mind if Trump could use some of that discretion to make it less problematic, until Congress could act to fix it.  I would have no objection.  What makes me snarl is the anti-Trump crowd, for whom almost literally nothing would please them.  I wish he were not President, but I'm glad it was him who got elected and not the alternative. Please let's not discuss that -- it's my story and I'm sticking to it, that's all.

[Stargazer]

9 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I wish people wouldn't always feel they had to pick sides.  Its almost as if people try to consult Trump (or Hilary, or Obama) before they decide if they support something or not.

It's as if the reason that if Obama (or Trump, or Hillary) supported something then I have to be against it (or for it). 

"Once Trump (or Hilary, or Obama) has spoken, the thinking is done"

Yeah, well, that freaks me out, too.

[Danzo]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

There is no law mandating prosecution for legal border crossing

Actually, people illegally cross at legal border crossing all of the time.  

My wife crossed at a legal border crossing without a visa (she wasn't legal). 

The border guard let her come without checking her papers.  (Of course she came here so she could serve a mission after praying if it was the right thing to do.  It would seem that God sometimes authorizes people to do things that might be otherwise illegal). 

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, provoman said:

Given that the Church appears to have capitulated to threats from some unknown in DC and I am not too thrilled with the statement.In addition I rather have Church be silent on political issues, and Government silent on religious issues.

It sounds like the church sees the separation of children from their parents as a moral issue and not a political one.

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The problem with selective enforcement is that it inculcates disrespect for law in general. If a law is not to be enforced, it should either be repealed or modified to the point where its enforcement makes sense.

 

One of the signs of bad law is that it will be arbitrarily enforced.

Currently immigration law is selectively  enforced because it is a bad law.  It was designed to be selectively enforced. It always has been selectively enforced and despite what you see in the news, it is still being selectively enforced by Donald Trump (as it was with Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Kennedy, etc.)

[jpv]

19 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This isn't the first time they've made a statement on immigration policy but it's the first time since this issue has really blown up over the last couple of weeks. Bravo, church!

http://fox13now.com/2018/06/18/lds-church-says-its-troubled-by-separation-of-families/

I totally agree with it too, but why is it that so many people are against the Church speaking out politically only when they disagree with what's being said.

[Danzo]

6 minutes ago, jpv said:

I totally agree with it too, but why is it that so many people are against the Church speaking out politically only when they disagree with what's being said.

I think you might be on to something.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Of course not.  But the Left is reacting as if it were.  That's what drive me crazy.  

But it was almost never happening before. Trump’s idiot mediocrity of an attorney general changed the policy about the law. Trump could stop him. He does not. Buck stops here and all that.