Trib Article re: The Church & Members and Mass Deportations

[Tacenda]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

same thing happened in our family almost a 100 years ago, Some serial killer American trash came across the border and murdered a relative of ours. We need to secure our borders so more american garbage doesn't  blow across the boundary. Keep in mind Melania Trump modelled in the US without a work permit, she was illegal.  Do you really expect though your newly elected convicted felon of a "President" will enforce the law for thee but not for me?

Duncan, you are roaring like a lion....I like it! On second thought like a moose from Canada and I heard you loud and clear!

 

Edited December 26, 2024 by Tacenda

[Danzo]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you denying that George Soros has funded the campaigns of number of prosecutors who have adopted a nullification-through-non-enforcement approach once in office?  Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), George Gascón (Los Angeles), Alvin Bragg (New York),  and so on?

You are trying to make an argument by using someone you don't like's name and attaching it to the side you don't like.

I really don't care, and neither should you, who supports your argument and who supports mine.

Its just lazy.

 

[Danzo]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

This woman would have been alive to celebrate  Christmas today if we had secure borders.  She deserved more than what our current crop of nullification-through-non-enforcement malefactors are doing to this country.   

This is just sick

You you some how think that murder is worse, when it is committed by an immigrant.

Just Sick

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

same thing happened in our family almost a 100 years ago, Some serial killer American trash came across the border and murdered a relative of ours.

I am sorry to hear that.

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

We need to secure our borders so more american garbage doesn't  blow across the boundary.

Disregarding the inflammatory rhetoric here "({A}merican garbage..."), you are in favor of nation-states securing their borders, correct?

From the Church's past statement: "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."

Do you agree with this assessment?

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

Keep in mind Melania Trump modelled in the US without a work permit, she was illegal. 

Perhaps, perhaps not.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

From the Church's past statement: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."

Do you agree with this assessment?

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

Do you really expect though your newly elected convicted felon of a "President" will enforce the law for thee but not for me?

First, aren't you the same guy who just a few days ago said: "I have a problem with Americans sticking their nose where it doesn't count for anything, like an obscure Canadian swim meet from a year ago"? 

Second, is this "sticking their nose where it doesn't count for anything" sentiment one of whose "for thee but not for me" kind of things?  

Third, I have no particular dog in the fight over whether Melania Trump violated the terms of her visa.  I am speaking of immigration policy generally, not specifically.  That said, the generalized principle, that people who come to the United States should follow the laws associated with their presence, remains.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Quote

This woman would have been alive to celebrate  Christmas today if we had secure borders.  She deserved more than what our current crop of nullification-through-non-enforcement malefactors are doing to this country.   

This is just sick

You you some how think that murder is worse, when it is committed by an immigrant.

Just Sick

First, no, I don't think that.

Second, the murder was, it seems, committed by an illegal immigrant.

Third, my comments have been about mass illegal immigration.  The burdens and difficulties imposed on society arising from huge numbers of illegal immigrants include, unfortunately, the commission of crimes.  These crimes would not be happening, or would be substantially reduced, if our borders were secure because, well, the violent and unvetted portion of illegal immigrants, who have no right to be here, would not be here to commit such crimes.

Fourth, you seem incapable of, or unwilling to, accurately stating my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From the Church's past statement: "Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable."

Do you agree with this assessment?

yes, I agree that "Most Americans" believe that. Historically that hasn't been the case for the indigenous populations of the Americas and let's forget when the US illegally entered into other countries and got involved in wars and messed around, so they should follow their own advice

 

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

First, aren't you the same guy who just a few days ago said: "I have a problem with Americans sticking their nose where it doesn't count for anything, like an obscure Canadian swim meet from a year ago"? 

yes, but what does that have to do with anything? Aren't you the "same guy" who said that the Church has no part to play in immigration law and you aren't a immigration lawyer , so what does it matter what you, me or the church as to say about US immigration law. Keep in mind, the Church is still US centric. When other countries have problems, the church says nothing, when something hits the fan in the US, the church releases statements and videos and whatnot. 

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, I have no particular dog in the fight over whether Melania Trump violated the terms of her visa.  I am speaking of immigration policy generally, not specifically.  That said, the generalized principle, that people who come to the United States should follow the laws associated with their presence, remains.

 that's the problem, Trump et al would turn a blind eye to his own wife's illegal status, and those who hire illegals, and go after others in the same boat, justice for the and not for me. 

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."

Do you agree with this assessment?

yes, do you really? your comments in past indicate that emotion shouldn't play a part in administering laws, which leads me to believe me to believe you can somehow turn on or off your emotions or you have none

 

apologies, the formatting got messed up!

Edited December 26, 2024 by Duncan

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Are you denying that George Soros has funded the campaigns of number of prosecutors who have adopted a nullification-through-non-enforcement approach once in office?  Larry Krasner (Philadelphia), Kim Foxx (Chicago), George Gascón (Los Angeles), Alvin Bragg (New York),  and so on?

You are trying to make an argument by using someone you don't like's name and attaching it to the side you don't like.

Well, no.  Larry Krasner, Kim Foxx, George Gascón, Alvin Bragg, Chesa Boudin, Kim Gardner, Rachael Rollins, Marilyn Mosby, and so on.  The nullification-through-non-enforcement phenomenon is, I think, pretty deliberate.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

A prosecutor’s duty — indeed their sworn oath — is to enforce the law and preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Yet, the PINOs do anything but enforce the law or uphold the Constitution. With the main goal of “decarceration,” they enact new policies that arbitrarily nullify entire sections of law.

Take Cook County State’s Attorney Foxx in Chicago. When she took office in 2016, she decided she didn’t like Illinois’ retail theft laws, which made stealing more than $300 of merchandise a felony. So she issued a directive that only defendants who thieve over $1,000 of merchandise or those with 10 or more felony convictions will be prosecuted for the higher offense. 

Virtually all PINOs have eliminated bail for even violent criminals. Catch and release is now the rule; the revolving door of justice now common.

The common PINO excuse for a rise in crime is to dismiss or deny it and then blame it on something, really anything (like COVID), other than their own policies. However, in Foxx’s Chicago, murders are up 30%, carjackings nearly 300%. In Gascón’s Los Angeles, 397 people were killed in 2021, the most homicides since 2007, marking a 53% increase from 2019. In Bragg’s New York, violent crime has soared 40% since 2021. In Gardner’s St. Louis, per capita murder rates rose to a 50-year high. 

Meanwhile, criminals got the memo that compliance with the law is, for the first time ever, optional. You want to steal merchandise from a store? No problem — just keep it at around $999. You want to carjack someone? By all means, go ahead. You probably won’t get caught because a lack of meaningful prosecution has killed off proactive policing.

The PINOs enacted their policies, and the policies yielded terrible results. Now, the people are in a position to evaluate whether they got what they bargained for when they gave these new prosecutors a chance.

And here:

Quote

George Soros and his son, Alex, have spent at least $117 million since 2016 to reshape America’s justice system. They’ve been successful: three in 10 Americans now live under a Soros prosecutor.
...

The Media Research Center obtained nearly 8,000 pages of internal documents through public records laws that show how a Soros-funded group called Fair and Just Prosecution (FJP) “directed Soros prosecutors to manipulate the rule of law concerning illegal immigration, drugs, abortion, election integrity, capital punishment and laws against childhood sex changes.”

MRC’s yearlong investigation suggests that Soros maintained influence over his chosen candidates after their elections were over. FJP had the Soros-backed attorneys sign 33 pledges to not enforce certain laws — including election integrity measures and immigration laws — and attend more than 50 meetings or “convenings,” some of which were “mandatory.” FJP pressed prosecutors to let criminals off the hook if they are black, having them pledge to “reduc[e] racial disparities in case outcomes by at least 20%.”

FJP’s influence can be seen on some of the most high-profile Soros prosecutors. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg sought to indict former President Donald Trump for his role in the January 6 protests after the group said it wanted to hold Trump “accountable.” Since-ousted San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin was in contact with FJP on a daily basis. On 20 occasions, FJP sent prosecutors “templates” of press releases they should send out, as well as social media posts to “adapt.”
 

And here:

Quote

Did you know that crime rates, including violent crime, have been dropping across the country for the past 30 years?  Incarceration rates, which peaked in 2008, have also fallen since then.

You would not know that, though, if you listened to the “progressive prosecutors” out there who drone on about so-called mass incarceration and the need to reform the criminal justice system, which had, by the way, been working well, until they came along.
...
But the national trends—lower crime and incarceration rates—are real. However, for those who live in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Seattle, Boston, and a few other cities, rising crime rates have been a big problem for the past few years.

In these cities, crimes like shoplifting, smash-and-grab thefts, and looting from businesses—not to mention murder, shootings, and other violent crimes—are rampant.
...

Although it is impossible to put an actual number on it, the losses must be in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. For insurance claims professionals, some of those losses must be hitting the bottom line—directly through claims filed, or indirectly when a client simply closes up shop.

This is a recent phenomenon, and there is a cause.

Each of these cities has a toxic trio: a prevailing “defund the police” mentality, demoralization of the police, and so-called progressive prosecutors. 
...
This new breed of elected prosecutor proudly refuses to prosecute misdemeanors, including theft, larceny, shoplifting, breaking and entering, malicious destruction of property, possession with intent to distribute any drug, resisting arrest, and dozens of other crimes. And since the gatekeeper to the criminal justice system is the elected district attorney (DA) (not the police chief, the mayor, or the governor), even when people are arrested for those crimes, nothing happens.
...
Rachel Barkow, a law professor, author, and a former member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, has summed up the goal of the progressive prosecutor movement as follows: “to reverse-engineer and dismantle the criminal justice infrastructure” that currently exists.  And the only way for advocates of the movement to achieve that ambitious goal is to eliminate traditional prosecutors and replace them with pro-criminal, anti-victim zealots. They do not care if the incumbent is a Democrat, Independent, or Republican. They reject the notion that the district attorney’s job is to enforce the law and seek justice by convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Yet, that is exactly the prosecutor’s duty, according to the American Bar Association.

It is a serious movement in large part because leftist billionaires such as George Soros and others have dumped and continue to dump tens of millions of dollars into specific district attorney races, often through dark-money political action committees (PACs) that identify, recruit, and fund criminal defense attorneys to run against independent law-and-order prosecutors.

According to a report by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, from 2018 to 2021, Soros spent $13 million on just 10 prosecutor races, and that spending comprised the majority of the candidates’ campaign spending, as much as 90 percent in some cases.  To date, Soros has shelled out more than $40 million on direct campaign spending in the past 10 years to elect rogue prosecutors. Those prosecutors have jurisdiction over 72 million Americans, including 25 of America’s 50 most populous cities and counties.
...
What began as a modest goal grew into a national movement with a more ambitious goal: to elect district attorneys who side with criminals and believe in abolishing prisons. New York Times bestselling author Emily Bazelon summed up the goals of the rogue prosecutor movement as follows: “[C]hange who occupies the prosecutor’s office, and you can make the system operate differently.”
...

There is an unspoken understanding between those who are funded, supported, or inspired by the Soros machine and the candidates who are elected. The understanding is this: We will back you, and when you are elected, you toe the line and enact our policies.

And their policies are pro-criminal and anti-victim. Every single one of them.

Some of these impact the insurance industry. And if you live in one of these cities, they impact you personally, as crime rates have skyrocketed, public safety has fallen dramatically, and you have to watch your back every time you step out of your house or apartment. Large businesses, like Seattle-based Amazon, recently moved around 1,800 employees from downtown Seattle to Bellevue, because Seattle is a crime-ridden, drug-infested, high-crime hellhole.

Here is the movement’s playbook:

• No bail, not even for career criminals;
• Refusal to prosecute all or most misdemeanors, including:
  • Possession of any drug,
  • Possession with intent to distribute any drug,
  • Most driving offenses,
  • Prostitution,
  • Breaking and entering a dwelling house,
  • Malicious destruction of property,
  • Resisting arrest by a police officer,
  • Larceny,
  • Theft under $950 dollars, and
  • Use of any illegal drug, including heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine.
• Refusing to send any criminal under 18 to adult court, no matter the crime, including murder, child abuse, rape, and sexual assault;
• Sending written orders to prosecutors. For example, in Los Angeles, George Gascón, has issued written orders to all 900 of his prosecutors, such as:
• Do not attend parole hearings;
• Do not file enhancements (like guns) or allegations (like prior convictions);
• Do not ask for the death penalty;
• Do not ask for life-without-parole sentences;
• Do not ask for bail;
• Must work to release 25,000 to 30,000 convicted felons whose appeals have been denied after they have served 15 years in prison;
• Set up police prosecution units;
• Work to unwind tens of thousands of convictions by the office if they suspect the conviction (even though appeals have been denied) was based on faulty evidence or racist motivations; and
• Prohibit prosecutors from asking for the maximum sentence, or from telling the judge about prior convictions.

The entire article is worth a read.

This is not name-calling.  This is recognizing what some prosecutors are doing (and not doing) for ideological reasons, which prosecutors' election efforts were heavily funded by Soros.

17 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I really don't care, and neither should you, who supports your argument and who supports mine.

Unless there is some sort of quid pro quo going on.  From the above article: "There is an unspoken understanding between those who are funded, supported, or inspired by the Soros machine and the candidates who are elected. The understanding is this: We will back you, and when you are elected, you toe the line and enact our policies."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

First, aren't you the same guy who just a few days ago said: "I have a problem with Americans sticking their nose where it doesn't count for anything, like an obscure Canadian swim meet from a year ago"? 

yes, but what does that have to do with anything?

I found it interesting that you, a Canadian (right?) recently complained about Americans speaking about "Canadian" issues, yet days later you are opining about "American" issues.

By all means, feel free to opine as you do.  I see nothing wrong with it.

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Aren't you the "same guy" who said that the Church has no part to play in immigration law

The Church has no secular authority, nor does it have any investigative or law enforcement authority or mandate.

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and you aren't a immigration lawyer,

No, I am not.  But I think regular people can observe what is going on in society, do a bit of research and reading, formulate informed opinions, and then speak such opinions and assessments.

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

so what does it matter what you, me or the church as to say about US immigration law.

For my part, I am part of the American electorate, so my view matters a little bit.

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Third, I have no particular dog in the fight over whether Melania Trump violated the terms of her visa.  I am speaking of immigration policy generally, not specifically.  That said, the generalized principle, that people who come to the United States should follow the laws associated with their presence, remains.

 that's the problem, Trump et al would turn a blind eye to his own wife's illegal status,

I don't follow.  She is a naturalized citizen.  What "illegal status" are you referencing here?

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."

Do you agree with this assessment?

yes, do you really?

Yes, really.

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

your comments in past indicate that emotion shouldn't play a part in administering laws,

I'm not sure what you mean by "emotion."  Equity should play a part in administering laws.  Common sense, too.  See, e.g., my previous comment here:

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 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).

I think the foregoing reflects the "a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law" sentiment expressed by the Church.

28 minutes ago, Duncan said:

which leads me to believe me to believe you can somehow turn on or off your emotions or you have none

I have plenty of emotions, and they sometimes get away from me.  In the main, though, I strive to keep my emotions within their proper sphere and element.  This is particularly so in the context of the law.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2024 by smac97

[Duncan]

 

https://www.visalaw.com/my-take-on-the-ap-story-on-melanias-illegal-work-in-the-us/

 

Edited December 26, 2024 by Duncan

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't follow.  She is a naturalized citizen.  What "illegal status" are you referencing here?

see here

https://www.visalaw.com/my-take-on-the-ap-story-on-melanias-illegal-work-in-the-us/

[Danzo]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Second, the murder was, it seems, committed by an illegal immigrant

Something that is irrelevant.

The person who committed the crime may have also had traffic violations,  Also irrelevant.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Second, the murder was, it seems, committed by an illegal immigrant

Something that is irrelevant.

It's relevant to secured borders.

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

The person who committed the crime may have also had traffic violations,  Also irrelevant.

But for unsecured borders, the crimes committed by persons who unlawfully cross those borders would not be happening.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

She is a naturalized citizen.  What "illegal status" are you referencing here?

see here

https://www.visalaw.com/my-take-on-the-ap-story-on-melanias-illegal-work-in-the-us/

Okay.  Again, she is currently a naturalized citizen.  What "illegal status" are you referencing here?  Her status in 1996?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

his is not name-calling.  This is recognizing what some prosecutors are doing (and not doing) for ideological reasons, which prosecutors' election efforts were heavily funded by Soros.

It means that you have run out of valid arguments.

"Why do share a position with (Name your boogie man)"

Not valid.

George Soros and I probably would disagree with many of my positions, and probably agrees with many of them

If you sat down with the guy, you even might agree with him on a few items. 

Does that automatically mean those positions you agree with him on are invalid?

This is a serious problem that has been goes back long before 2016,before Soros or whoever your current boogie man is, has been involved with the issue. 

 

 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  Again, she is currently a naturalized citizen.  What "illegal status" are you referencing here?  Her status in 1996?

Thanks,

-Smac

currently but not originally by the looks of it and why can't the same consideration given her be given to other folks who came and worked illegally?

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's relevant to secured borders.

But for unsecured borders, the crimes committed by persons who unlawfully cross those borders would not be happening.

Thanks,

-Smac

If the poor lady had been killed by an American Citizen, I guess it would have been ok.

Just Sick

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It means that you have run out of valid arguments.

Well, no.  Soros has a particular ideology.  He is funding the political campaigns of candidates who are willing to advance that ideology when elected as prosecutors.  There is, I think, some quid pro quo going on here.

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

George Soros and I probably would disagree with many of my positions, and probably agrees with many of them

If you sat down with the guy, you even might agree with him on a few items. 

I disagree with him on the nullification-through-non-enforcement idea.

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Does that automatically mean those positions you agree with him on are invalid?

No.  I think the skyrocketing crime rates arising from the Soros ideology is pretty good evidence of the defects in that ideology.

4 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This is a serious problem that has been goes back long before 2016,before Soros or whoever your current boogie man is, has been involved with the issue. 

I think Soros and those he has helped elect have, in practical terms, worsened society through the enaction of the ideology.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Duncan said:

currently but not originally by the looks of it and why can't the same consideration given her be given to other folks who came and worked illegally?

Again, my previous comment here:

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 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

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Danzo said:

If the poor lady had been killed by an American Citizen, I guess it would have been ok.

Just Sick

Again, you seem incapable of, or unwilling to, accurately stating my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

But for unsecured borders, the crimes committed by persons who unlawfully cross those borders would not be happening.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2024 by smac97

[Danzo]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Again, you seem incapable of, or unwilling to, accurately stating my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your position seems to be that 

1.  People who immigrate here are more likely to violent crimes than native people

2. People immigrating here directly causes them to commit violent crime

I regularly association myself in family, work and church with immigrants, both legal and illegal. 

I have never observed this and I wholeheartedly reject your position. 

 

[Danzo]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  Soros has a particular ideology.  He is funding the political campaigns of candidates who are willing to advance that ideology when elected as prosecutors.  There is, I think, some quid pro quo going on here.

I disagree with him on the nullification-through-non-enforcement idea.

No.  I think the skyrocketing crime rates arising from the Soros ideology is pretty good evidence of the defects in that ideology.

I think Soros and those he has helped elect have, in practical terms, worsened society through the enaction of the ideology.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is stupid. 

Every prosecutor has used nullification-through-non-enforcement.  The fact that you seem unaware of this, as an attorney, is puzzling.

The government does not have the time or the resources to enforce all of the laws as written.

I get that you don't like this Soros fellow, but you really have to stop blaming him for everything you don't like about the way law works in America. Its a bad argument. Find another argument.  If Soros, didn't exist, we would still have the same problems.

 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Quote

Again, you seem incapable of, or unwilling to, accurately stating my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

Your position seems to be

That "seems to be" is doing a lot of work.

43 minutes ago, Danzo said:

that 

1.  People who immigrate here are more likely to violent crimes than native people

No, that is not my position.  I stated this on 12/18:

Quote

I would like to better understand statistics regarding illegal immigrants and crime rates, as that seems like a pretty heavily politicized topic, with what look like polar opposite conclusions reached depending on the point of view of the news outlet.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here.  

Even when I specifically address an issue, you seem incapable of, or unwilling to, accurately stating my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

43 minutes ago, Danzo said:

2. People immigrating here directly causes them to commit violent crime

I have said nothing like this.

43 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I regularly association myself in family, work and church with immigrants, both legal and illegal. 

So do I.

43 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I have never observed this

There are huge numbers of unvetted people who come into the U.S. illegally.  Some of these people have violent criminal histories, and/or commit violent crimes while in the U.S.  

We need to secure our border so as to reduce the instances of these types of folks entering the U.S.  I think their committing violent crimes while here constitutes a forfeiture of any equitable basis for remaining in the United States, such that they should be deported and barred from re-entry.

For other illegal immigrants, people who are otherwise upstanding and contributing members of society, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, 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).

43 minutes ago, Danzo said:

and I wholeheartedly reject your position. 

A classic strawman, since neither of the above is my "position."

Again, you seem incapable of accurately stating, or unwilling to accurately state, my position, and instead impute onto me sentiments I do not hold.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 26, 2024 by smac97

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are huge numbers of unvetted people who come into the U.S. illegally.  Some of these people have violent criminal histories, and/or commit violent crimes while in the U.S

Then why don't you support laws that allow people to come here legally?

Then we could vet them.

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some of these people have violent criminal histories, and/or commit violent crimes while in the U.S

Then support a system that allows people to come to the US after they are vetted.

Current law does not provide a practical way for people to come here legally. Give them one.

[smac97]

On 12/26/2024 at 1:40 PM, Danzo said:

This is stupid. 

You seem increasingly incapable of having a civil discussion about a difficult topic.

On 12/26/2024 at 1:40 PM, Danzo said:

Every prosecutor has used nullification-through-non-enforcement. 

Prosecutorial discretion is, I think, substantially different from ideologically-driven quid-pro-quo wholesale refusal to prosecute entire categories of crimes.

On 12/26/2024 at 1:40 PM, Danzo said:

The fact that you seem unaware of this, as an attorney, is puzzling.

You live in California, correct?  The state which houses a number of jurisdictions which are, at present, metaphorically illuminated by the blazing flames of giant dumpster fires caused by Soros-funded prosecutors abdicating their responsibilities on a large scale, and which abdication has materially adversely affected the quality of life of Californians.

See, e.g., here: Citizens lay blame for rising crime on progressive prosecutors, push for recalls (from November 2023)

Quote

WASHINGTON (TND) — Communities fed up with rising crime are pointing fingers at progressive district attorneys who often opt for lighter sentences and less jail time for criminals.

 

According to FBI crime data, California’s violent crime rate is 31% higher than the national average.

Residents of Alameda County are now pushing to recall its progressive prosecutor Pamela Price.The recall effort is reportedly close to getting the number of signatures needed to move forward.

“My concern is public safety...we all want to see our judicial system be fair and just,” said Brenda Grisham during a Facebook live video. Grisham advocates for victims of violent crime with the organization Save Alameda For Everyone or "SAFE."

Anybody could be a victim at any time. Business owners are losing their businesses. People are losing their lives, and we continue to not see it as important,” Grisham continued.

Los Angeles’ progressive prosecutor George Gascon dodged two similar recall efforts in the last two years.

San Franciscans removed their progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin, last summer.

Boudin, Gascon and Price all received backing from groups tied to the far-left activist billionaire megadonor, George Soros.

“Soros realized that you don’t actually need to change the laws, you just need to change how they are enforced,” said Elon Musk during an interview with Joe Rogan last month.“One of the things he spotted was that the value for money in local races is much higher than it is in national races.”

From November 2022: Soros District Attorneys Make Our Cities Unsafe: Are They Also Making Elections Less Secure?

Quote

George Soros, a billionaire hedge fund manager, has made headlines for large contributions to the Democratic Party and progressive causes.¹ More quietly, he has been helping to elect politically motivated district attorneys to implement policies too extreme to pass a legislature.²

So far, the predictably awful results of this scheme have been most clearly seen in crime statistics. 2020 was one of the most violent years and the homicide rate in 2021 increased even more.^3-4 Crime has gotten so bad that the issue became front and center in the 2022 midterm election.⁵ 
...
Across the country, many of these district attorneys are the lone officials responsible for the prosecution of election crimes in their jurisdictions.
...

In recent years, Soros has backed district attorneys who have promised alternatives to incarceration, sought to abolish cash bail, pushed for full legalization of marijuana, and instructed prosecutors to reduce charges for armed robbery down to petty larceny.^8-10 These changes go beyond the usual prosecutorial discretion and may not have the votes to pass the legislature.

These ideological district attorneys decide which cases deserve prosecution and how to prosecute in large swaths of the country. Not only does this affect the prosecution of violent crime, but these district attorneys also decide whether to prosecute election crimes. Soros-backed district attorneys represent more than 70 million Americans, more than a fifth of the entire country.¹¹ In some states, attorneys general at least have oversight or dual prosecutorial authority and are making a difference.¹² But for 15 million Americans, it is tough luck if election crimes happen and a Soros-backed district attorney decides to look the other way.¹³

Funding from Soros often represents a significant percentage of the campaign funds of these district attorneys and can lead to a conflict of interest. In total, Soros has spent at least $40 million to elect his chosen district attorneys.¹⁴ For some of these district attorneys, Soros funding represented at least 80 percent, and up to 90 percent, of their total campaign funding.¹⁵ When one financier represents this magnitude of funding, it is difficult to imagine that his ideology would not affect how these elected officials handle their duties. Are these district attorneys working for the citizens that elected them, or for the outside financer that made their campaigns possible?
...

In 2022, there has been a rise in violent crime across the United States.¹⁶ But many cities and counties run by Soros-backed district attorneys have seen a disproportionally sharp increase in violent crime. Delaware County, Pennsylvania, saw a 127-percent increase in homicides once a Soros district attorney took over the top prosecutor job. Nearby Philadelphia had the highest murder rate of the 10 largest cities in the country.¹⁷ Cook County, Illinois, saw the largest spike in Chicago homicides in more than 30 years while the progressive district attorney backed by $2 million from Soros dropped charges against 30 percent of felony defendants.¹⁸ In Dallas County, Texas, after District Attorney John Creuzot decriminalized theft under $750, criminal trespass, and drug possession, crime increased 15 percent, while convictions dropped 30 percent.¹⁹

Soros-backed district attorneys in California witnessed crimes in their districts that would seem more at home in movies. Shocking videos emerged of organized flash mob robberies at places like San Francisco’s Union Square, Nordstrom, and Louis Vuitton.^20-21 In Los Angeles, a flash mob ransacked a convenience store and the rest of the country got to learn what exactly rail theft entails.^22-23

This is to be expected when prosecutors who promise no prosecution are elected. Parts of the nation can begin to look like a third-world country because people will always push boundaries when there are no consequences.

From July 2024: George Soros makes bombshell U-Turn as the liberal prosecutors he helped elect plummet in popularity

Quote

George Soros has halted funding for several unpopular liberal prosecutors that he helped elect as they face uphill battles to remain in office. 

The billionaire, 93, funneled more than $5 million into his fundraising PAC, the California Justice & Public Safety PAC, from 2018 to 2020, but has not spent a penny since the start of 2023. 

Namely, the U-turn has hit Los Angeles County DA George Gascon and Alameda County DA Pamela Price ahead of their re-elections, with both seen as being at risk of being booted from office. 

The prosecutors are often cited by critics for their role in a perceived deterioration of California, with their soft-on-crime policies leading to soaring crime rates across the state. 
...
In his 2020 election campaign, Gascon received more than $4.5 million in funding from the {Soros-funded} PAC, as he rode a wave in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests to enter office on an extreme liberal platform. 
...
Other crimes that Californians were immune from prosecution for included disturbing the peace, driving without a license, public intoxication, making criminal threats and loitering to commit prostitution. 

Gascon's memo also discouraged even handing out fines for the offenses - with the only exceptions for repeat offenders, domestic violence cases and using physical force against officers.  

In his first year in office, crime rates skyrocketed in Los Angeles, with homicide rates increasing by 11.8 percent from 2020 to 2021, as burglaries and gun offenses also soared. 

Gascon made limiting the number of people in jail one of the cornerstones of his platform, as he also halted cash bail and fought to protest immigrants from ICE.  

As Gascon fights for his future, he won an open primary in May with 25.2 percent of the vote, but faces a challenge to remain in office when he faces former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman in November - without Soros' money. 

His soft-on-crime policies are cited by many critics as one of the reasons Los Angeles has seen a staggering increase in homelessness and open-air drug use as the city's streets rapidly deteriorated. 

The deterioration of California described above is not, I think, a matter of correlation, but rather of causation.  And that causation can reasonably be attributed to an ideological quid pro quo between George Soros and the prosecutors whose campaigns he has funded ("For some of these district attorneys, Soros funding represented at least 80 percent, and up to 90 percent, of their total campaign funding...").

On 12/26/2024 at 1:40 PM, Danzo said:

The government does not have the time or the resources to enforce all of the laws as written.

The wholesale abdication of prosecutorial duties, such as the Gascon-related items described above, is the issue here.

On 12/26/2024 at 1:40 PM, Danzo said:

I get that you don't like this Soros fellow, but you really have to stop blaming him for everything you don't like about the way law works in America. Its a bad argument. Find another argument.  If Soros, didn't exist, we would still have the same problems.

I think the ideological and financial influence of George Soros on dozens and dozens of prosecutors throughout the United States merits some attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12 by smac97

[smac97]

On 12/26/2024 at 1:52 PM, Danzo said:

Quote

There are huge numbers of unvetted people who come into the U.S. illegally.  Some of these people have violent criminal histories, and/or commit violent crimes while in the U.S

Then why don't you support laws that allow people to come here legally?

I do support such laws.  I have said that many times.

Meanwhile, however, we need to secure our borders.

And we need to deport those convicted of violent crimes.

Regarding upstanding and contributing members of society who have previously come here illegally, and who came here under past wink-wink-nudge-nudge circumstances, I am open to some limited amnesty provisions at the outset to accommodate these folks (a point I have made previously). 

On 12/26/2024 at 1:52 PM, Danzo said:

Then support a system that allows people to come to the US after they are vetted.

Current law does not provide a practical way for people to come here legally. Give them one.

Again, I am open to that.  The system, however, must be a system of laws.  

Again: Living in the United States is a wonderful opportunity that many, many people would like to have.  I think many people feel that basic notions of fairness militate against the "cheat the system, skip the line, and hope you get away with it" justification that you appear to be advocating here.  This justification is a huge part of how we have ended up with such massive immigration issues.  It incentivizes breaking the law, and therefore invites all the downstream consequences which follow.

We need to secure our borders.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 12 by smac97