Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Much of why the system is not working is because we are not enforcing the law, such that millions of people take that as a tacit invitation to violate those laws, such that millions of people do violate those laws, which millions of violations overwhelm the system.

Much of the reason we are not "Trying Harder", is that it poorly crafted law, created by people who didn't think it through, and didn't make adjustment where necessary.

I mean, using employers to enforce the immigration law, What could go wrong?

Have you ever encountered a poorly crafted law? All the laws in Utah may be perfectly crafted, but We are dealing with creative writing assignments drafted by congress. They often don't think these laws through very carefully. 

[Danzo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, if you could refrain from accusing me of racism and equating illegal immigration with rape and murder, you might be able to persuade me of the merits of your proposal.  As it is...

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't see how taxes has to do with racism.

maybe you could elaborate?

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think securing our borders and regulating the number of people who come here, and for what purposes, and under what conditions, are propositions that make a lot of sense.  The federal government really ought to be limited as intended by the Founding Fathers, but what it is supposed to do it should do well.  That would include securing our borders and regulating immigration

Funny you mention the founding fathers.  They didn't try to restrict immigration.  They were all dead (as well as most of their children and grandchildren) before the US passed the first law to restrict immigration

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Much of why the system is not working is because we are not enforcing the law, such that millions of people take that as a tacit invitation to violate those laws, such that millions of people do violate those laws, which millions of violations overwhelm the system

This does appear to be saying it’s a decent law, we just aren’t trying hard enough (“we are not enforcing the law”) because the implication is we could effectively enforce the law in general…at least that is how it reads to me.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't see how taxes has to do with racism.

maybe you could elaborate?

I think he was saying if your other posts were more like that one, you would be more persuasive?

[Danzo]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think securing our borders and regulating the number of people who come here, and for what purposes, and under what conditions, are propositions that make a lot of sense.

I would make sense if it was done in a good way.  It's currently not being done in a good way.

It is possible to say that "controlling the borders is a good thing" and "the current way we have chosen to control the borders is not good." I think most of your posts seem to admit this, but you have such a hard time saying it.

One can say, "I think we should help the poor" and "The current system for help the poor is bad, and often times counterproductive"

One can also say "We need to maintain and control the borders", and at the say time say "The current system we have of controlling the borders is bad, and often times counterproductive"

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think he was saying if your other posts were more like that one, you would be more persuasive?

I'm not sure what he was saying. 

[Danzo]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

According to this article they sure contribute a huge amount to the US economy. If that matters. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/how-does-immigration-affect-us-economy#:~:text=According to an American Immigration,which such data is available.

1.6 trillion....not too shabby.

Not a bad return on a 151 billion dollar investment. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I'm not sure what he was saying. 

I do at times wish I had a Urim and Thummim for conversations on the board….

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Funny you mention the founding fathers.  They didn't try to restrict immigration.  They were all dead (as well as most of their children and grandchildren) before the US passed the first law to restrict immigration

The Founding Fathers didn't pass any laws regarding e-commerce, either.  They did, however, leave us with a system of government and basic principles laid out in the Constitution.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The Founding Fathers didn't pass any laws regarding e-commerce, either.  They did, however, leave us with a system of government and basic principles laid out in the Constitution.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course.  But you really can't say e-commerce laws were supported by the founders.  It wasn't their idea.

The same with restricting entry to the US.  You can't say it was their idea either. 

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Again, if you could refrain from accusing me of racism and equating illegal immigration with rape and murder, you might be able to persuade me of the merits of your proposal.  As it is...

I don't see how taxes has to do with racism.

maybe you could elaborate?

I think he was saying if your other posts were more like that one, you would be more persuasive?

I'm not sure what he was saying. 

See Calm's point.

I am saying that I construed one of your prior remarks made when you were characterizing my position ("When it comes to keeping undesirable people out...") as an implicit accusation of racism, and your other repeated accusations (that I equate illegal immigration with rape and murder) as being fairly counterproductive (they being calculated to provoke and offend, rather than to advance the substance of the discussion).

As to the former implication, I responded:

Quote

Quote

When it comes to keeping undesirable people out, The ends justify the means. 

I don't know what you mean by "undesirable people." 

If by that you mean illegal immigrants with past or ongoing criminal behaviors and propensities, yes, I want them generally excluded from the United States.

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

If by that you mean to impute onto me some sort of racialist sentiment, I deny the charge.

You did not respond or clarify, so I have inferred that you were intending the third one (racialist sentiments).  Perhaps you meant the first one, or something else.  I don't know, and you ain't sayin.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Much of why the system is not working is because we are not enforcing the law, such that millions of people take that as a tacit invitation to violate those laws, such that millions of people do violate those laws, which millions of violations overwhelm the system.

Much of the reason we are not "Trying Harder", is that it poorly crafted law, created by people who didn't think it through, and didn't make adjustment where necessary.

I don't think securing the border against waves of millions of immigrations is a result of a "poorly crafted law."  Rather, it is the result of a calculated policy decision, one that has been in place to varying degrees for many years now (though the last four years have been at or near the apex of the feds being derelict in their responsibilities).

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Have you ever encountered a poorly crafted law?

Yes.

Have you ever encountered politicians and other state actors who, for political reasons, refuse to enforce laws as enacted?  California is really good at that.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

All the laws in Utah may be perfectly crafted,

Boy, you just can't help yourself.

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

but We are dealing with creative writing assignments drafted by congress. They often don't think these laws through very carefully. 

I think we should secure the border, and keep it rigorously secured against unlawful crossings. 

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Again, I hope any deportation efforts involve structured and sequenced measures (deport the baddies first), and compassionate accommodations where at all possible.

Again, during this process we could do all sorts of things to formulate accommodations and processes for those who have arrived or stayed illegally but who are otherwise decent, hard-working people.  

Again:

Quote

In a civil context, I don't think an SOL (that is, a time-based limitation on which the State can detect, locate and deport someone who is here unlawfully and on an ongoing basis) is a good idea, as it incentivizes unlawful behavior.  "Hey, all you have to do is sneak in and stay under the radar for X amount of years, then you're home free!"  I prefer above-the-board incentives for lawful entry and presence.  Let's improve the Green Card system.  Perhaps with some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate those who came here previously under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.

Again:

Quote

To some extent, I grant the point that some accommodation may be appropriate for some who came here unlawfully under the wink-wink-nudge-nudge system.  But not as a wholesale thing.

Again:

Quote

If by that you mean mean illegal immigrants who are upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I reject the characterization.  I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously).  I am also open to substantially revising and expanding Green Card entry into the U.S. (also a point I have made previously).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't think securing the border against waves of millions of immigrations is a result of a "poorly crafted law."  Rather, it is the result of a calculated policy decision, one that has been in place to varying degrees for many years now (though the last four years have been at or near the apex of the feds being derelict in their responsibilities).

I believe you are ill informed. The problems with the law has existed since the current law was passed, through republican and democratic administrations, its not a problem of just the last four years. I have personally been dealing the the issues since the administration of George W Bush.

How long must this go one before you stop to think "Maybe the law could be written differently", instead of "Its a great law, we are just not trying hard enough".

 

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Have you ever encountered politicians and other state actors who, for political reasons, refuse to enforce laws as enacted?  California is really good at that.

Politicians usually aren't enforcing the laws. The police (and various police -like agencies) enforce the laws

Politicians Make the laws.  In the US system it's mostly the executive department that both makes and enforces the laws. (the constitution says the legislative branch makes the law, but that idea has been out of fashion since the 1930s)

If the laws aren't being enforced (especially after seven different presidents) then 

1.  Nobody wanted to enforce the law in the first place or

2.  The law is bad and needs to be fixed.

 

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we should secure the border, and keep it rigorously secured against unlawful crossings. 

To do that we need better laws

 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

Or maybe we can send them to jail, and otherwise punish them, just like all of the other criminal (equal protection under the law and all that)

Or maybe can can deport all criminals

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Or maybe we can re work the laws and improve them while we are working on enforcement, or as part of working on enforcement. 

Maybe we can repair the car before we try to drive it faster, rather than making the car drive faster before it can be repaired. 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Its a great law, we are just not trying hard enough".

Maybe phrase that as him thinking “it’s a workable law if we enforce it”.  And then explain why it isn’t actually workable so no one really tries to enforce consistently?

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

I believe you are ill informed.

Quelle surprise.

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

The problems with the law has existed since the current law was passed, through republican and democratic administrations, its not a problem of just the last four years.

I have not been speaking of immigration laws being passed, but being enforced, or intentionally not enforced (such as, but not limited to, the vigorous and deliberate inaction over the last four years).

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

I have personally been dealing the the issues since the administration of George W Bush.

How long must this go one before you stop to think "Maybe the law could be written differently", instead of "Its a great law, we are just not trying hard enough".

How many times will you mischaracterize my position, often drastically so, before we get to a substantive conversation?

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Politicians usually aren't enforcing the laws.

Plenty of law enforcement positions are elected, ergo those elected are "politicians."

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

The police (and various police -like agencies) enforce the laws.

At the direction of their political masters.

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Politicians Make the laws. 

All three branches of government "make the laws" in one way or another.  The courts create case law.  Congress legislates statutes.  The Executive Branch enforces statutes and enacts administrative/regulatory provisions as to federal agencies which have the force of law.

The southern border is unsecured because politicians refuse to secure it.

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

In the US system it's mostly the executive department that both makes and enforces the laws. (the constitution says the legislative branch makes the law, but that idea has been out of fashion since the 1930s)

If the laws aren't being enforced (especially after seven different presidents) then 

1.  Nobody wanted to enforce the law in the first place or

2.  The law is bad and needs to be fixed.

There are plenty of additional reasons, including looking at illegal immigrants as part of an "electoral coalition."  IOW, cheap votes.

Do you really think that Soros-backed prosecutors, including those in your state of California, are refusing to prosecute theft and other crimes because "{n}obody wanted to enforce the law in the first place" or because such laws are "bad" and need to be replaced?  Or is it possible that they have other motives for refusing to prosecute?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

To do that we need better laws

Respectfully, I think we can take huge strides in securing our borders with the laws in their current state.

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

I also think we should deport illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors).

Or maybe we can send them to jail, and otherwise punish them, just like all of the other criminal (equal protection under the law and all that).

And then deport them.  Sure.  Or deport them first.  

If a person commits two crimes (committing robbery and being in the U.S. unlawfully), he can be punished for both.

Are you truly opposed to deporting illegal immigrants who have criminal backgrounds (violent felonies and misdemeanors)?

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Or maybe can can deport all criminals.

Including those with citizenship?  

5 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

I think that having commenced serious work on these initial objectives, we start to re-work and improve immigration laws.

Or maybe we can re work the laws and improve them while we are working on enforcement, or as part of working on enforcement. 

Maybe we can repair the car before we try to drive it faster, rather than making the car drive faster before it can be repaired. 

Sounds like we may agree more than we disagree.  I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

have not been speaking of immigration laws being passed, but being enforced, or intentionally not enforced (such as, but not limited to, the vigorous and deliberate inaction over the last four years).

And Danzo, if I understand correctly, has been explaining they haven’t been enforced because they can’t be enforced effectively because they are poorly written. Expecting a law that is unable to be effectively enforced to be enforced doesn’t make sense. 
 

You haven’t explained, iirc, why you believe they are decently written and are not enforced because people don’t want to as opposed to too high of a cost for the benefit of enforcement.

And Danzo hasn’t really explained why they are poorly written though I think his pointing out they have never been enforced effectively since written is a major point in supporting his premise. 
 

If it isn’t clear, I would really like to see Smac support his belief they are actually enforceable and Danzo to get more specific on why they are not to see if he can convince Smac (he has provided enough support in my view, but I thought they were broken long ago ever since Confidential Informant iirc—might have been Danzo or another lawyer who specialized in working with immigrants—explained the system in some detail eons ago).

There is something fundamentally wrong imo with a law that requires permanent residence to get visiting access.  What a waste of time and money to jump through those unnecessary hoops and to process all that wastefulness.

My husband suggested separating registration and processing of immigrants from enforcement and give the processing side to the private section. They have the incentive to streamline the process and maximize those applying and being accepted as that can maximize their profits while if the government penalizes them for not doing background checks, etc they lose profits. 
 

And because they are not tied to the enforcement/punishment side of things, there is no desire to inflate wrongdoing etc.  

The enforcement being left to the government would still need fixing, but they would have more funding and less to pay attention to if they didn’t have to worry about the documentation side of things.

My husband, a ‘native’ Utahn, has been very impressed with how the DMV now operates in Utah as it has been much easier, much less waiting around etc. So he tends to apply that idea as much as possible to other government aspects. 
 

He worked in the business school so has the viewpoint, though an organizational psychologist which gives him a variation on straight business professors.

Edited December 19, 2024 by Calm

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Maybe phrase that as him thinking “it’s a workable law if we enforce it”.  And then explain why it isn’t actually workable so no one really tries to enforce consistently?

Maybe that's better, however I have given plenty of examples of the absurd effects of the current law, but I don't believe he really wants to see it. I could go on and on and on (and I think I already have gone on and on), but he already seems to have an opinion and these facts and stories just get in the way of what he already knows. 

I am not really convinced he even understands the current law and how it is applied,  at least not on the level of having personally experienced it, and how it effects people individually, in real life.   He certainly hasn't demonstrated that he understands how the law is enforced and its effects. 

I get it.  Most people don't interact with immigration law on a regular basis, don't understand it.  They don't have to.  It doesn't affect them.  

I usually don't comment much on the board because I usually feel I don't really have subject matter expertise.  But on this subject, I have about 25 years experience with close family, ecclesiastical callings, working at an immigration law office, specializing on the intersection of tax law and immigration law, representing illegals in litigation,   reporting their taxes etc.

I really don't expect to change SMAC's mind, only he can do that, but I hope to inform others and provide education based on my knowledge and experiences.

[Danzo]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are plenty of additional reasons, including looking at illegal immigrants as part of an "electoral coalition."  IOW, cheap votes.

I just ran for office and won.  I speak Spanish and have some connections with the local Hispanic community.

I don't think it contributed at all to my victory.  I really don't know anyone who voted for me because of this, in fact, soliciting the Immigrant vote would have been a waste of my time.  Why?

BECAUSE THEY DON"T VOTE!

These illegal people have much better things to think about than who they want to vote for.

"I want to come to the US illegally so that I can influence US elections"  Said no one. 

[Danzo]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I think we can take huge strides in securing our borders with the laws in their current state.

I haven't been convinced that you even know the laws in their current state, at least you haven't demonstrated this in how you have posted. 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I am not really convinced he even understands the current law and how it is applied,  at least not on the level of having personally experienced it, and how it effects people individually, in real life.   He certainly hasn't demonstrated that he understands how the law is enforced and its effects. 

 

I am kind of at a loss at how he doesn’t see your info as sufficient to demonstrate the laws are badly formed laws and need to be changed more than they need to be enforced…or rather in my view, changed so they can be enforced.  I think they will be much more respected when they make sense to people.

So maybe Smac could ask specific questions on what he needs demonstrated to show the law is too badly formed in its current state to ever work effectively?

[Calm]

Why would illegal aliens take the risk of registering to vote under false identities when it opens them up to another avenue to be identified as illegal and deported?  One vote is unlikely to make much difference in their life for that person even at a local level while it will make a huge difference to the person to draw the eye of law enforcement if someone checking voter status finds a red flag.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would illegal aliens take the risk of registering to vote under false identities when it opens them up to another avenue to be identified as illegal and deported?  One vote is unlikely to make much difference in their life for that person even at a local level while it will make a huge difference to the person to draw the eye of law enforcement if someone checking voter status finds a red flag.

methinks someone is watching or listening to conspiracy theories