View Poll Results: Could you deport them personally or not?

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I think I could do it.

    31 51.67%
  • No, I don't think I could.

    29 48.33%
Page 29 of 39 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 383

Thread: Deportation Question.

  1. #281
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,414

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Sure. However, one of the circumstances that does not have impact on whether or not you enforce the law is whether or not the law-breaker has kids. What are you going to say to the brother of the dad in this scenario who is childless - sorry Jose, you should have gamed the system better by having an anchor baby or two, now off you go to Mexico?
    Depending on the crime prison sentences certainly are delayed in some cases if the individual found guilty has kids they are solely responsible for.

    The Judicial system isn't perfectly robotic. But it is supposed to be blind. Stripping as much emotionalism out of the process as possible is how we try to make sure that it is just. When emotions and sympathy make justice decisions, you get bias.
    Why do you think at sentencing hearings the defense points out and calls witnesses pointing to the character of an individual, their family, role in the community and so on? The reason is because these are all factors in sentencing depending on the crime and whether that individual is a danger to society or not.

    Sure, except that no one is willing to do so because people like you will insist that it's mean.
    Not true at all. I am all for it, because stronger borders and strengthening penalties against those that employ illegal immigrants prevents these types of situations from developing in the first place.

    Agreed. We are also not going to be able to catch and prosecute all murders, all low-level identity thefts, all pyramid schemes, all of those who frequent underage prostitutes, or all of those who purchase and sell illegal narcotics. The inability to perfectly enforce the law does not justify the argument that one should not enforce it when you can.
    Thats a far too simplistic argument. DHS estimates that they can at best deport approximately 400,000 people a year. If you were in the unfortunately position that you could only prosecute 20% of criminals in a given year, you would probably find it makes the most practical sense to prosecute those criminals that constituted the most danger to society and not just randomly go after them in a haphazard manner.

    This case isn't black and white. But the issue that you are trying to inject into it has and should have zero bearing in a legal proceeding.
    Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  2. #282
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
    Whatever else it might be it is not a blank check to grant amnesty to 5-30 million people. Discretion should occur one at a time. Catch 'em, charge 'em, then decide.

    Obama has changed the nation. Citizens are unimportant. Undocumented Democrats are all important.

    The man is a traitor.

  3. #283
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    Illegal immigration is not a felony. No one goes to jail for being in the country illegally, not unless they've done something else too. Should we start jailing people for minor crimes now? We already have more prisoners per capita than anyone else.
    No. We deport people for illegally entering our nation. That's the punishment ascribed by law. Just as we jail people for some crimes and fine them for others. You don't get to beg off on the consequences of your decisions simply because you have kids.

  4. #284
    Sage
    Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The Golden State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    41,555

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    No. We deport people for illegally entering our nation. That's the punishment ascribed by law. Just as we jail people for some crimes and fine them for others. You don't get to beg off on the consequences of your decisions simply because you have kids.
    I mostly agree with that.
    I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.

    The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.

    As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.

    So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
    Would it be even possible?

    Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.

    The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.

    IMO, that is.

    If the law is the law, then let's pull over all of those drivers going 80 mph in the 70 zone. There are millions of them, too.
    "Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud... [he's] playing the American public for suckers." Mitt Romney

  5. #285
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Depending on the crime prison sentences certainly are delayed in some cases if the individual found guilty has kids they are solely responsible for.
    In your example there are two parents who are (and, this is rather important if that is the precedent you wish to depend upon) still fully capable of taking care of their children.

    Why do you think at sentencing hearings the defense points out and calls witnesses pointing to the character of an individual, their family, role in the community and so on? The reason is because these are all factors in sentencing depending on the crime and whether that individual is a danger to society or not.
    If the question is whether or not the individual is a danger to society, then those who have experience with the individual are germane to the question. If the question is whether or not the individual entered the country legally, then whether or not the individual has reproduced in the subsequent years is immaterial to the question.

    And yes, Justice is supposed to be blind. It's not supposed to be nice, it's not supposed to be sweet it's not supposed to enable us or make us feel warm and fuzzy on Christmas Eve, it is supposed to be just. That's why we call it the Justice System instead of the Doing What We Feel Like At The Moment System.

    Not true at all. I am all for it, because stronger borders and strengthening penalties against those that employ illegal immigrants prevents these types of situations from developing in the first place.
    Ah. So why are you in favor of the children of illegal immigrants going hungry, by denying jobs to their parents?

    Thats a far too simplistic argument. DHS estimates that they can at best deport approximately 400,000 people a year. If you were in the unfortunately position that you could only prosecute 20% of criminals in a given year, you would probably find it makes the most practical sense to prosecute those criminals that constituted the most danger to society and not just randomly go after them in a haphazard manner.
    ....what percentage of crimes do you think get solved? What percentage of ID thefts do you think end with a conviction? Small-time pyramid schemes generally don't even get pursued.

    Again, arguing that we are not able to round up and deport 11 million people (and that is not completely true) is not an argument for not enforcing immigration law.

    Then you are pretty ignorant of law in its practice because these things certainly do have bearing on legal proceedings. What do you think prosecutorial discretion is?
    Prosecutorial discretion refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute powers. A prosecuting attorney has power on various matters including those relating to choosing whether or not to bring criminal charges, deciding the nature of charges, plea bargaining and sentence recommendation. This discretion of the prosecuting attorney is called prosecutorial discretion.


    You know what's not in there? Designing a system that doesn't enforce the law if the people who break it have kids.

  6. #286
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,635

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I mostly agree with that.
    I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.

    The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.

    As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.

    So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
    Would it be even possible?

    Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.

    The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.

    IMO, that is.

    If the law is the law, then let's pull over all of those drivers going 80 mph in the 70 zone. There are millions of them, too.
    What is the rationale for that (bolded above) plan? The two parts are in direct conflict with each other. The "good" illegal aliens are to be made legal (based on them having jobs right?) but their "bad" employer is to be fined for having provided them the very job that made them "good" illegal aliens? That seems simply insane.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 11-27-14 at 12:21 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #287
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,414

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    I mostly agree with that.
    I just think there are mitigating circumstances around people who have lived and worked in the USA for years, raised families, paid taxes, been good citizens without technically being citizens. I think a lot of the blame for the fact that people are living here illegally all this time falls to the federal government and its failure to enforce the law.

    The best interests of the nation are served by admitting that the government has been remiss in its duty to deport illegal aliens. Had they been sent home years ago, then that would have been just. But, they weren't. That's where the mitigating circumstances and the complicency of the federal government comes in.

    As an analogy, it is against the law here in California do drive more than 70 miles per hour on the freeway. That law has been ignored by both the Highway Patrol and the drivers for several decades now. As a result, the average flow of traffic is often faster than the top maximum speed, which is 70 MPH. Admittedly, drivers are breaking the law.

    So, would it be in the best interests of the nation to pull all of the drivers over and ticket them?
    Would it be even possible?

    Illegal immigration is much the same. The law has been ignored for decades, and now there are so many law breakers that it is impractical to punish them all.

    The best course would be to fine employers of illegals, but leave the way open for said illegals who have been living and working here for decades a path to legality.

    IMO, that is.

    If the law is the law, then let's pull over all of those drivers going 80 mph in the 70 zone. There are millions of them, too.
    Very well said. Unfortunately you are being pragmatic and you are arguing with people that strive to be dogmatic.

    I think you have it in a nutshell though when you point out we are dealing with the results of decades of the federal government being remiss when it comes to illegal immigration.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 11-27-14 at 12:31 AM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  8. #288
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,635

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Very well said. Unfortunately you are being pragmatic are you are arguing with people that strive to be dogmatic.
    Are you kidding me? What is pragmatic about saying that illegal aliens with jobs should be made legal (simply for having jobs?) but those that gave them those jobs should be fined?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  9. #289
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,414

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What is the rationale for that (bolded above) plan? The two parts are in direct conflict with each other. The "good" illegal aliens are to be made legal (based on them having jobs right?) but their "bad" employer is to be fined for having provided them the very job that made them "good" illegal aliens? That seems simply insane.
    I see it basically like this:

    1. We have a big problem with illegal immigration due to decades of poor border enforcement combined with poor enforcement against employers employing illegal immigrants.

    2. Because of that we have families that came here illegally over a decade ago, have become part of their communities, have various family ties here, and in many cases have kids here.

    We can deal with the original problem (number 1), while still being humane when dealing with the consequences (number 2) as justice is not simply supposed to be blind its also supposed to be humane. That said, if we strive to be humane in dealing with the consequences without addressing the cause (number 1), we will only make the problem worse.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  10. #290
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,115

    Re: Deportation Question.

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    I see it basically like this:

    1. We have a big problem with illegal immigration due to decades of poor border enforcement combined with poor enforcement against employers employing illegal immigrants.

    2. Because of that we have families that came here illegally over a decade ago, have become part of their communities, have various family ties here, and in many cases have kids here.

    We can deal with the original problem (number 1), while still being humane when dealing with the consequences (number 2) as justice is not simply supposed to be blind its also supposed to be humane. That said, if we strive to be humane in dealing with the consequences without addressing the cause (number 1), we will only make the problem worse.
    Now your shifting from the OP ("Could you enforce the law even if it involves making emotionally difficult decisions") towards something else entirely ("what should we do in term of immigration reform").

    Justice being blind is what helps make it humane. It is when we let it be steered by our emotional desires that it quickly becomes arbitrary and abusive.

Page 29 of 39 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •