This is interestingly the argument proponents of the ACA made about that bill, but now the same argument is being used by the opposite side. And the opposition (in this case, most democrats) seem to be making the same argument that most republicans made in opposition before - it’s about more than cost to the system. It’s always interesting to me how things flip.
I don’t know your position on the ACA, but I’m just talking about the two sides in general. I think we’re all guilty of it. I used to have a problem with the way mainstream news was operated by the huge corporations. They haven’t changed at all, but I now think they provide a crucial service to the US.
The CA and NY governors for example, who have been pardoning illegal immigrants to help them avoid deportation. There are a couple dozen sanctuary cities with similar policies.
This article has a lot of good background on the immigration debate, which was not particularly partisan before the past 10 years or so when the Democratic Party decided to focus more on identity politics rather than economic policy and targeted the increasing Hispanic voting group with a pro-immigration platform.
Like I said, some think some laws just don’t matter… The ones the media has swayed people’s opinions on…I am great full to bleeding heart liberals.
I’m certainly no “bleeding heart”.
But I do think it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “good” and “bad” (in a moral or ethical sense) to equate it directly with adherance to the law.
Or, for that matter, that breaking a single law (depending on the law, obviously) somehow makes a person overwhelmingly “bad” to where you’d be unwilling to say they are “a good person”, in the generic.
Hence my Javert comment in the initial post…
And as a quick add-on… can you not appreciate the distinction between people thinking that CERTAIN laws “don’t matter” or are significantly less important, in contrast to somebody thinking that no laws matter?
Your posts continually want to impose the latter on people who probably actually think the former, and it is one of the more ridiculous slippery slopes to try and argue for.
And for that matter, are you going to seriously suggest that YOU follow 100% of laws 100% of the time?
But the question is, were they convicted of violent crimes? The two crimes I see mentioned in that article (which I admittedly skimmed through quickly) were joyriding and a weapons charge, neither of which are violent offenses.
That is interesting though, I didn’t know they were pardoning them. I personally am not happy about that if the story is accurate and the intent is actually to stop enforcement of immigration law (like California has done), which is far different from what has been previously referred to as “sanctuary cities” that simply wouldn’t enforce immigration law at the state level. It seems to now all just be about fights between the two sides, not about trying to solve problems.
There are anti-deportation proponents that make no distinction between people simply here illegally, people that have been convicted of misdemeanors, people that have been convicted of felonies, and people that have been convicted of violent misdemeanors and felonies. They don’t lead off with that stance (because they know the public is against that viewpoint). But if they are pressed on who we SHOULD deport, they say NO ONE. Most people don’t take this stance, but there are a significant number of people that do and they do have some democrat politicians that sympathize with their viewpoints, even if they aren’t on CNN regularly advocating it.
“Joyriding” is not a crime. Auto theft is and it’s a felony. Since when is a firearm charge not considered a violent crime?
Violent crimes are when someone uses force or threatens to use force.
A firearms charge is almost certainly not a violent crime. If it was a violent crime it would be labeled as such: assault with a deadly weapon, attempted murder, menacing, etc.
So you’re telling me that the party that wants to ban semi-automatic weapons doesn’t consider people that are already violating the current weapons laws “violent criminals?” A felon in possession of a firearm isn’t a violent criminal? I understand that the “possession” charge isn’t a violent act, that’s not what I’m questioning. You can carry a gun illegally, but not use it to commit another crime, and still be a criminal. That I get. But my point is that, ever since I started listening to the gun control debate, I’ve always heard people charged with gun crimes referred to as violent felons. When did being charged with a gun crime no longer put you in the violent criminal box?
Thats the point. It was a firearms charge not a violent crime.
I’m really not arguing if deporting the specific people in question is a good or bad idea.
But they are legal aliens who did not commit violent crimes and yes this could be considered splitting hairs but we do draw lines like these for specific reasons.
My initial question was who says we shouldn’t deport illegal aliens who commit violent crimes and we were pointed to example of legal aliens who didn’t commit violent crimes. details. facts…
Joyriding is a crime in many states (would be very surprised if there are any in which it is not a crime, but I don’t know for sure), even if it’s not called “joyriding.”
Auto theft is also a crime, but it’s not the same thing. While obviously dependent on the state, “theft” (or whatever name the jurisdiction uses) generally requires intent to permanently deprive someone of property. Joyriding would not fall under that because that usually involves a non-permanent taking.
More to the point though, neither are necessarily violent crimes.
Usually when they say a generic “firearm charge” its means something like illegal possession of a firearm. That is not a violent offense. If it was something like robbery at gunpoint, they would usually call it that, not a “firearm charge.” That said, I don’t know what the person the article was referring to actually did, so it’s possible it was a violent crime.
First offense is usually a misdemeanor, not sure about penalties. Usually though it’s handled through immigration courts, so punishment is generally just removal and time bar to reentry.
If prosecuted as a crime the defendant is entitled to greater due process rights, access to a lawyer, etc. Not the case in immigration courts.
I’m not sure, I know there are deportable offenses, but I don’t know what they are or what distinguishes them from non-deportable offenses.
Penalties don’t always correlate correctly. I’d probably rather be charged with drunk in public and spend a night in jail than be civilly fined 100k by the ftc though one is a crime and one is not.
ETA: Also, I think important to note, all of these crimes you’re talking about are at the state level. Immigration offenses are at the federal level. So you’re referring to two completely different systems.