BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
EXXEL Distributions
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-23-2015, 12:28 PM   #23
NickyC
Brigadier General
NickyC's Avatar
2111
Rep
3,603
Posts

Drives: YMB M4, has a roof though. :(
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Somewhere I don't want to be

iTrader: (15)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
Funny how when the Obama Administration runs the country off the rails, the Left accuses all politicians of being the same...
I'm about as far from the left as you can be, and I'll accuse them all of being the same. As evidence, just what did the historical election victory for the Repubs in 2014 get us? They've signed on to everything Obama wanted, gave him his massive government budget without so much as a whimper. Obamacare funded with no strings attached. Repubs control both the Congress (with a massive majority) and the Senate now, and they're basically rubber stamping everything Obama wants.

Repubs were given a mandate in 2014 with a historical victory by a populace that has plainly rejected Obama's policies. The Repubs cleared house not only in Congressional and Senate seats, but in local elections such as Governorships. What did they do with this victory? Absolutely nothing besides expand Government even more.

They are all the same, Big Business and the Central Banks run your life. Elections are nothing but an illusion given to the sheeple every two years so we can pretend that Democracy still exists.
Appreciate 0
      07-27-2015, 09:39 PM   #24
bbbbmw
Major General
1853
Rep
5,220
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

The Kate Steinle killing made me think about this thread again. Thanks, Obama!

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...mily/30629061/
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      07-27-2015, 10:30 PM   #25
ScottSinger
Brigadier General
1052
Rep
3,395
Posts

Drives: M235i 6spd
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Mid-Atlantic

iTrader: (0)

[quote=bbbbmw;18327800]The Kate Steinle killing made me think about this thread again. Thanks, Obama!

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...mily/30629061/[/QUOTE

I'm not understanding the article at all, people get shot to death every day in the U.S. what's the big deal he needs to call the families.
Appreciate 0
      07-28-2015, 07:51 AM   #26
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
601
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
....

Let's go ahead and release illegals in the US when they are caught driving drunk:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...drivers-draws/

Thousands of US citizens are victims of crimes by illegals - now our law enforcement is being instructed to release illegal immigrant drunk drivers on the US population. It's a matter of time til this affects each of us individually.

...
  • What does one's being an illegal alien while driving drunk have to do with (1) driving, or (2) drinking to excess, or (3) doing both at the same time? Even the Fox article you cited doesn't go so far as to attempt to make such a preposterous and potentially prejudiced correlation.
Red:
  • If our jails weren't so full of people who've committed so-called crimes, the victims of which can only be shown to be themselves and their direct accomplices, there might be room in the jails to allow for detaining captured illegal aliens.
  • According to the article you referenced, "The Department of Homeland Security issued [an] advisory which informs [Federal Border Patrol] agents in the Tucson, Ariz., sector that they have three options if they encounter suspected drunk drivers[:] detain them at the request of local law enforcement, detain them without the involvement of another agency or let them go....The department advisory makes clear that its intent is to tell agents about their legal options when encountering drivers who appear to be impaired -- not direct [Border Patrol agents] to detain or not detain these drivers."
From what I can tell, the document DHS provided to Border Patrol personnel didn't tell them anything that the agents weren't already aware of. Moreover, the memo expressly states it's administrative intent is but to inform them of their options. I don't see a problem with that; organizations of all sizes and purposes often remind their employees of things their employees should or probably do already know.

I am annually required to reread, and attest in writing to having done so more than a few of my firm's key policies and expectations. Every person in the firm has the same requirements, although the specific policies and guidelines each person must reread vary to some extent depending on one's role in the firm. Literally and substantively, every one of us is being re-told what our options are and what the firm expects of us in a variety of circumstances, including HR-related ones, professional practice (work) matters, ethical ones, and others.

Additionally, various units within the firm periodically issue "bulletins" reminding firm personnel, particularly client service personnel, what options they have in a host of "on the ground" service delivery situations, selling situations, "complaint" and/or potential disciplinary situations (re: clients or coworkers), and so on. Those "bulletins" are distributed on a wide array of schedules ranging from "recurring and regularly" to "whenever someone thinks of doing so and has time to do so," and any-/everything in between.

In all honesty, I don't see there being a problem or anything wrong being done. Rather I see it as the DHS taking just action to ensure that its personnel are kept fully informed of the nature and extent of the discretion with which their role entrust them. Furthermore, I think that the DHS does not need to explain or reiterate to Border Patrol agents the "good and bad" of drunk driving, no matter the resident status of an alcohol impaired vehicle operator; that's well understood by Border Patrol agents not only by dint of their role as law enforcers, but also simply as common individuals who live in U.S. In contrast, I do think that occasional reminders of their discretionary ambit, the nature of and extent to which they may exercise professional judgment is important to regularly remind law enforcement professionals of how far they can go and how far they cannot go.

Lastly, although the article you referenced mentions the politicization of the matter, the legal and political ramifications are worth noting. Among those I find temporally germane are:
  • The current climate in U.S re: race relations and racially motivated mistreatment by law enforcement personnel. I think that whether there is any such mistreatment is beside the point. The fact is that all law enforcement organizations need to appear to exercise equanimity in performing their duties. Illegal aliens, drunk driving or not, are humans and as such deserve fair treatment when they are identified (presumably by their "odd" driving behavior, and prior to the agent's knowing of their BAC or immigration status) approached, apprehended and/or arrested by law enforcement officers. Their rights in a U.S. courtroom and/or INS hearing room are a whole different matter.
  • Donald Trump's recent wholesale generalization about Mexicans. I wouldn't normally say that a statement of that sort by him would be relevant to this issue. If Warren Buffett, Charles Krauthammer or George Will, or Bill Hemmer, for example, had made those statements, I wouldn't note it as being relevant because I wouldn't think it is. But Mr. Trump is running for President and his poll numbers are putting him at the head of the Republican pack. His recent comments about Mexicans, considered in conjunction with already strained race relations in U.S., it is unfortunately more difficult for BP agents, as it is for local and state police officers, to err on the side of aggressive enforcement instead of using their discretionary powers re: comity to lean the other way.

    I'm not at all keen on "going easy" on illegal immigrants, personas non grata, "the whale smashed my dinghy, so I can't leave" excuse makers, or whatever, but that doesn't mean I can't see the "big picture," particularly when it appears that U.S. could have a prejudicial, stereotype-believing, generalization making person in the White House after the next Presidential election. And the "big picture" right now is that of our federal government, we don't need yet another level or law enforcement entity that appears to conduct its affairs with racial bias aforethought.
  • Why are Border Patrol (BP) agents specifically approaching or looking for drunk drivers? Moreover, what makes someone think "Oh, that car appears to be driven by an intoxicated person. Lemme stop them and check to see if they are an illegal alien." I can see a local police officer thinking that way if only because drunk driving falls within the state and local jurisdiction of offenses for which he should apprehend offenders. In contrast, merely seeing a car operated by a seemingly drunk driver isn't within the scope of BP stated purpose, although BP agents can in the right circumstances stop such vehicles/drivers.

    I read the article you pointed me to. I understand what it said. I quite simply don't agree that there's a need for for BP agents to actively engage themselves in traffic offenses. And realistically, if they aren't independent of any immigration-related suspicions involving themselves in traffic stops, presumably for DUI at the minimum, why else would they encounter an illegal alien who otherwise gives no outward signs of being an illegal alien? It's not as though the BP had already identified the individuals as a band of illegal aliens and "oh, by the way" elected to apprehend them as such while the individuals happened to be both drunk and driving.

    Tell me please, how hard will I have to look to find a post/topic wherein/-of you express the view that one or more federal agencies has encroached too far into the scope of what is most appropriately (per you) left to state and local jurisdictions to handle? I don't know the answer, but my gut tells me I won't have to look long or hard.
  • According to Tom Fitton, "Families across America are now at risk on the roads." Why? How? Just because Mr. Fitton wants to "raise Cain" and therefore says so, perhaps in an effort to scare the idiots who live in non-border states like Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, Wyoming, and so on? Families are in no more danger from drunk driving illegal aliens than we in this forum are in danger of you penning a cogently presented, non-inflammatory political post that reflects anything other than textbook ideology as articulated and published by the darlings of right wing extremism and fundamentalism.**

    At best and ostensibly, families in California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and the states that border Canada are the only families that might plausibly be at any greater risk from anything the BP doesn't do re: drunk drivers who are found to also be illegal aliens. How so is that? It's so because the outside of border states, the only place an illegal alien driving drunk behind the wheel of a car is likely to encounter a BP agent is at an international airport.

    Tell me. Have you ever seen the Border Patrol make a traffic stop on airport grounds? Was it by some stroke a car load of Mexicans who drove the vehicle out of the cargo hold of the 747 that just landed from Juarez International?

    The last time I checked, there were 17 states that have share an international border with Canada or Mexico, and there are 50 states. Yes, 17 states does qualify as "across America," but you and I both know the connotation of Mr. Fitton's statement wasn't with regard to 17 states. You know that because the worse be the implied consequences of the DHS memo, the better it is for your anti-Obama administration tirade. I know it because that's how I considered it until I read further into the article you referenced.
** Note
With all due respect, it's possible that you have posted original, strong, cogent arguments, but I don't remember seeing any.

All the best.


P.S.

Thank God for Evelyn Wood. LOL My life would be considerably more rushed and stressful without her teachings. As a senior member of management, occasionally some of those "bulletins" come from my practice areas and/or project teams, and when they do (in contrast with the obligations folks have re: reading posts in public forums) I must read and approve them before they are distributed firm wide or practice wide because there's no way in hell I will let something issue with my name on it when I know it will be received by thousands, and actually closely read by hundreds, of smart (and sometimes smart aleck/ass) consultants and administrative professionals. Hell no!!! I'm a demanding boss, and that means I must be demanding on myself too.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      07-29-2015, 12:52 AM   #27
bbbbmw
Major General
1853
Rep
5,220
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
  • What does one's being an illegal alien while driving drunk have to do with (1) driving, or (2) drinking to excess, or (3) doing both at the same time? Even the Fox article you cited doesn't go so far as to attempt to make such a preposterous and potentially prejudiced correlation.
Red:
  • If our jails weren't so full of people who've committed so-called crimes, the victims of which can only be shown to be themselves and their direct accomplices, there might be room in the jails to allow for detaining captured illegal aliens.
  • According to the article you referenced, "The Department of Homeland Security issued [an] advisory which informs [Federal Border Patrol] agents in the Tucson, Ariz., sector that they have three options if they encounter suspected drunk drivers[:] detain them at the request of local law enforcement, detain them without the involvement of another agency or let them go....The department advisory makes clear that its intent is to tell agents about their legal options when encountering drivers who appear to be impaired -- not direct [Border Patrol agents] to detain or not detain these drivers."
From what I can tell, the document DHS provided to Border Patrol personnel didn't tell them anything that the agents weren't already aware of. Moreover, the memo expressly states it's administrative intent is but to inform them of their options. I don't see a problem with that; organizations of all sizes and purposes often remind their employees of things their employees should or probably do already know.

I am annually required to reread, and attest in writing to having done so more than a few of my firm's key policies and expectations. Every person in the firm has the same requirements, although the specific policies and guidelines each person must reread vary to some extent depending on one's role in the firm. Literally and substantively, every one of us is being re-told what our options are and what the firm expects of us in a variety of circumstances, including HR-related ones, professional practice (work) matters, ethical ones, and others.

Additionally, various units within the firm periodically issue "bulletins" reminding firm personnel, particularly client service personnel, what options they have in a host of "on the ground" service delivery situations, selling situations, "complaint" and/or potential disciplinary situations (re: clients or coworkers), and so on. Those "bulletins" are distributed on a wide array of schedules ranging from "recurring and regularly" to "whenever someone thinks of doing so and has time to do so," and any-/everything in between.

In all honesty, I don't see there being a problem or anything wrong being done. Rather I see it as the DHS taking just action to ensure that its personnel are kept fully informed of the nature and extent of the discretion with which their role entrust them. Furthermore, I think that the DHS does not need to explain or reiterate to Border Patrol agents the "good and bad" of drunk driving, no matter the resident status of an alcohol impaired vehicle operator; that's well understood by Border Patrol agents not only by dint of their role as law enforcers, but also simply as common individuals who live in U.S. In contrast, I do think that occasional reminders of their discretionary ambit, the nature of and extent to which they may exercise professional judgment is important to regularly remind law enforcement professionals of how far they can go and how far they cannot go.

Lastly, although the article you referenced mentions the politicization of the matter, the legal and political ramifications are worth noting. Among those I find temporally germane are:
  • The current climate in U.S re: race relations and racially motivated mistreatment by law enforcement personnel. I think that whether there is any such mistreatment is beside the point. The fact is that all law enforcement organizations need to appear to exercise equanimity in performing their duties. Illegal aliens, drunk driving or not, are humans and as such deserve fair treatment when they are identified (presumably by their "odd" driving behavior, and prior to the agent's knowing of their BAC or immigration status) approached, apprehended and/or arrested by law enforcement officers. Their rights in a U.S. courtroom and/or INS hearing room are a whole different matter.
  • Donald Trump's recent wholesale generalization about Mexicans. I wouldn't normally say that a statement of that sort by him would be relevant to this issue. If Warren Buffett, Charles Krauthammer or George Will, or Bill Hemmer, for example, had made those statements, I wouldn't note it as being relevant because I wouldn't think it is. But Mr. Trump is running for President and his poll numbers are putting him at the head of the Republican pack. His recent comments about Mexicans, considered in conjunction with already strained race relations in U.S., it is unfortunately more difficult for BP agents, as it is for local and state police officers, to err on the side of aggressive enforcement instead of using their discretionary powers re: comity to lean the other way.

    I'm not at all keen on "going easy" on illegal immigrants, personas non grata, "the whale smashed my dinghy, so I can't leave" excuse makers, or whatever, but that doesn't mean I can't see the "big picture," particularly when it appears that U.S. could have a prejudicial, stereotype-believing, generalization making person in the White House after the next Presidential election. And the "big picture" right now is that of our federal government, we don't need yet another level or law enforcement entity that appears to conduct its affairs with racial bias aforethought.
  • Why are Border Patrol (BP) agents specifically approaching or looking for drunk drivers? Moreover, what makes someone think "Oh, that car appears to be driven by an intoxicated person. Lemme stop them and check to see if they are an illegal alien." I can see a local police officer thinking that way if only because drunk driving falls within the state and local jurisdiction of offenses for which he should apprehend offenders. In contrast, merely seeing a car operated by a seemingly drunk driver isn't within the scope of BP stated purpose, although BP agents can in the right circumstances stop such vehicles/drivers.

    I read the article you pointed me to. I understand what it said. I quite simply don't agree that there's a need for for BP agents to actively engage themselves in traffic offenses. And realistically, if they aren't independent of any immigration-related suspicions involving themselves in traffic stops, presumably for DUI at the minimum, why else would they encounter an illegal alien who otherwise gives no outward signs of being an illegal alien? It's not as though the BP had already identified the individuals as a band of illegal aliens and "oh, by the way" elected to apprehend them as such while the individuals happened to be both drunk and driving.

    Tell me please, how hard will I have to look to find a post/topic wherein/-of you express the view that one or more federal agencies has encroached too far into the scope of what is most appropriately (per you) left to state and local jurisdictions to handle? I don't know the answer, but my gut tells me I won't have to look long or hard.
  • According to Tom Fitton, "Families across America are now at risk on the roads." Why? How? Just because Mr. Fitton wants to "raise Cain" and therefore says so, perhaps in an effort to scare the idiots who live in non-border states like Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Utah, Wyoming, and so on? Families are in no more danger from drunk driving illegal aliens than we in this forum are in danger of you penning a cogently presented, non-inflammatory political post that reflects anything other than textbook ideology as articulated and published by the darlings of right wing extremism and fundamentalism.**

    At best and ostensibly, families in California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and the states that border Canada are the only families that might plausibly be at any greater risk from anything the BP doesn't do re: drunk drivers who are found to also be illegal aliens. How so is that? It's so because the outside of border states, the only place an illegal alien driving drunk behind the wheel of a car is likely to encounter a BP agent is at an international airport.

    Tell me. Have you ever seen the Border Patrol make a traffic stop on airport grounds? Was it by some stroke a car load of Mexicans who drove the vehicle out of the cargo hold of the 747 that just landed from Juarez International?

    The last time I checked, there were 17 states that have share an international border with Canada or Mexico, and there are 50 states. Yes, 17 states does qualify as "across America," but you and I both know the connotation of Mr. Fitton's statement wasn't with regard to 17 states. You know that because the worse be the implied consequences of the DHS memo, the better it is for your anti-Obama administration tirade. I know it because that's how I considered it until I read further into the article you referenced.
** Note
With all due respect, it's possible that you have posted original, strong, cogent arguments, but I don't remember seeing any.

All the best.


P.S.

Thank God for Evelyn Wood. LOL My life would be considerably more rushed and stressful without her teachings. As a senior member of management, occasionally some of those "bulletins" come from my practice areas and/or project teams, and when they do (in contrast with the obligations folks have re: reading posts in public forums) I must read and approve them before they are distributed firm wide or practice wide because there's no way in hell I will let something issue with my name on it when I know it will be received by thousands, and actually closely read by hundreds, of smart (and sometimes smart aleck/ass) consultants and administrative professionals. Hell no!!! I'm a demanding boss, and that means I must be demanding on myself too.
Astonishingly, and in spite of the Tome you wrote, you appear to have completely missed the point. To be succinct, the issue is not which agency needs to inform which agency - but simply the fact that:

THEY ARE ILLEGAL, AND SHOULDN'T BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE TO DRIVE DRUNK.

If apprehended,

THEY SHOULD BE IMMEDIATELY DEPORTED.

The point of the article was that:

THE DRUNK DRIVING ILLEGALS ARE BEING RELEASED BACK INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY. THEY ARE NOT BEING JAILED OR DEPORTED.

In your Tome, you also alluded to "race" issues, and whether police should turn a blind eye to someone's legal status. Simply being here illegally is a crime, and police are sworn to uphold the law and fight crime. This would seem to be a clear-cut issue??

Lastly, you mentioned prisons being overcrowded for victimless crimes? What specifically would that be?
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      07-29-2015, 12:58 AM   #28
bbbbmw
Major General
1853
Rep
5,220
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

[quote=ScottSinger;18328040]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
The Kate Steinle killing made me think about this thread again. Thanks, Obama!

http://www.indystar.com/story/opinio...mily/30629061/[/QUOTE

I'm not understanding the article at all, people get shot to death every day in the U.S. what's the big deal he needs to call the families.
You're probably right. He's probably sick of being on the phone, since he's personally called:

1) Call Bruce/Caitlin Jenner
2) Call Sandra Fluke
3) Call Michael Sam
4) Call Jason Collins
5) and on and on...

Even his Administration is sick of being on the phone, I guess:

"Obama’s secretary of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson, summed up the collective administration’s reaction to Kate Steinle’s death perfectly when he was asked at a congressional hearing whether anyone had reached out to the Steinle family. His response was, “To who?”
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      07-29-2015, 01:11 AM   #29
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
601
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
...
The point of the article was that:

THE DRUNK DRIVING ILLEGALS ARE BEING RELEASED BACK INTO AMERICAN SOCIETY. THEY ARE NOT BEING JAILED OR DEPORTED.

....
Oh, yes. Of course that is it's point. Anyone for whom the point is that illegal aliens are not being jailed or deported would write their headline as "Administration memo tells border agents they can release drunk drivers" rather than something like "Administration memo tells border agents to release apprehended illegal aliens."

Are you really telling me you see that the article's thinly veiled purpose is to curry favor with and rally additional anti-Obama support from the generally neutral MADD (and related) constituency?

All the best.
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
      07-29-2015, 01:22 AM   #30
bbbbmw
Major General
1853
Rep
5,220
Posts

Drives: 135i
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southwest

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony20009 View Post
Oh, yes. Of course that is it's point. Anyone for whom the point is that illegal aliens are not being jailed or deported would write their headline as "Administration memo tells border agents they can release drunk drivers" rather than something like "Administration memo tells border agents to release apprehended illegal aliens."

Are you really telling me you see that the article's thinly veiled purpose is to curry favor with and rally additional anti-Obama support from the generally neutral MADD (and related) constituency?

All the best.
Is the article accurate?

http://cis.org/ICE-Document-Details-...elease-in-2013
__________________
<OO (llll)(llll) OO>
Appreciate 0
      07-29-2015, 04:56 AM   #31
tony20009
Major General
tony20009's Avatar
United_States
601
Rep
5,665
Posts

Drives: BMW 335i - Coupe
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Washington, DC

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbbbmw View Post
You ask me if the articles are accurate. Accurate in what regards? I cannot give you an unqualified "yes" answer to your question. Here's why.
  • Both state that undocumented immigrants are caught by the Border Patrol (BP) and some of them are released. That is correct.
  • The CIS article provides a table that lists the nature of offenses for which specific quantities of undocumented immigrants have been convicted. I am willing to accept that to the extent of the information shown in the table, it is correct. The CIS cites ICE as the source of the table's information, but it doesn't provide enough information for one to find the document from which the figures have been taken. I'm not saying the CIS have misrepresented something; I am saying that they don't provide adequate reference info for one to determine whether they haven't or have. [I'm well aware that writers of all sorts fail to make it easy for interested readers to verify the literal and contextual accuracy of information they present.]
  • Neither discussion presents a full picture, however. Rather, both of them, to greater and lesser degrees, focus on one specific aspect of the Border Patrol's actions. To the extent that the full "story" is not presented for readers, the accuracy of the prose overall is questionable not because what either specific facts found in either author's writing is wrong, but because both authors fail to present the complete picture.
Also, and not related to accuracy, whereas the Fox article directs one's focus to a specific offense -- drunk driving -- and uses that offense as a tool for riling MADD-type readers, the CIS article does not. In that regard, the CIS discussion is better than is the Fox one.

On the issue of completeness of presentation:
A key point that neither article addresses, indeed neither mentions, is this statement in the referred-to memo from Jeh Johnson.
While DHS may exercise prosecutorial discretion at any stage of an enforcement proceeding, it is generally preferable to exercise such discretion as early in the case or proceeding as possible in order to preserve government resources that would otherwise be expended in pursuing enforcement and removal of higher priority cases.

Absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirement of mandatory detention, field office directors should not expend detention resources on aliens who are known to be suffering from serious physical or mental illness, who are disabled, elderly, pregnant, or nursing, who demonstrate that they are primary caretakers of children or an infirm person, or whose detention is otherwise not in the public interest.
Source: "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants" [PDF Document 2 (attached)]
Now it's reasonable to ask why those statements from Mr. Johnson's memo important to the topic at hand. The reason they are relevant is because the DHS has a resource shortage that constrains what it can do. The impetus behind Mr. Johnson's memo, the one Fox and CIS referenced, is that there are approximately some 11 million undocumented immigrants in U.S. and the DHS has the resources remove with 400K of them.
(Source: "The Department of Homeland Security’s Authority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others " [see attached PDF Document 1])

I suppose it's not surprising that DHS has a resource problem. Moreover, it's likely that the problem is not enough money. In 2006, the Inspector General reported to President Bush that it cost about $56.7K per illegal alien ($386 million in total) to detain just 6,700 individuals and that a total of 35,000 "dangerous" illegals would need to be detained in order to end the "catch and release" program.
(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051902181.html -- Like CIS above, the author of that article, Ms. Jakes Jordan, doesn't so much as even name the report from wich she's taken her information. I'm not nuts about her or her editors having failed to do so.)

While I don't like the idea of releasing captured illegal aliens, I like even less the prospect of detaining the "Nth" comparatively innocuous undocumented immigrant and by doing so, having no physical ability to detain the "Nth + X" illegal alien we apprehend who is not nearly as much of a risk to U.S. citizen safety, health and well being. So though I don't at all like that BP release illegal aliens of any sort, I also understand that for the DHS under Obama, as it was under his predecessors, the available options are constrained.

Those constraints force managers to make choices that nobody particularly likes. The problem I have with both the Fox and CIS article is that neither makes even the vaguest reference to the constraints linked inextricably to the matter of how we can detain and deport illegal aliens. I don't at all mind that each organization is dissatisfied with the idea and act of releasing apprehended undocumented immigrants. As something to point out, it's a valid thing to communicate. My problem is not with the part of the story they told, it's with the part they omitted.

Other:
Now as for my own point of view about illegal aliens and what do with them...well, I'll be the first to say there must be something about the matter that I don't know of or don't understand. I agree with you that as illegal immigrants, they have no right to be in U.S.; therefore, they need to go back to where they came from, or go to some other place that's willing to receive them; I really don't care which place they go to. "Anywhere but here" works for me. On that point, you and I agree.

Sidebar:
Frankly, it's surprising to me that one or more countries that have negative growth doesn't want to receive our illegal immigrants. http://geography.about.com/od/popula...phy/a/zero.htm Has anyone actually asked those nations if they'd consider addressing their negative growth problem by taking our illegal immigrants? One would think that countries wouldn't want to have negative growth rates, but maybe they do: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...,d.eXY&cad=rja .
End of sidebar.

By the same token, I'm not willing to just take them to a deserted island and leave them there. I realize that is essentially and almost what England did with its criminals and miscreants, and the result is there is now a country called Australia. Unfortunately, there just aren't any such places left for us to take that approach. I have my own solution ideas about how to solve the problem, but I doubt that anyone will like it.

I don't have a solution for dealing with all illegal immigrants, but I'm keenly aware that about half the 11 million of them that are in U.S. are Mexican citizens. (http://immigration.procon.org/view.r...ourceID=000845) Because half the illegal aliens here are from Mexico, it seems to me that half the illegal immigrants apprehended would be Mexican. To that end, So, below is what I would do to deal with half the illegal immigrants in U.S. -- send them back to Mexico:
  1. I would require all U.S. citizens 16 and older to have a passport and I would allow states to insert stickers/stamps/something into the passport that drivers would use as their driver's license. (The mechanics aren't important; something workable could be figured out.)
  2. I would make it illegal for any U.S. citizen or legal resident to aid or comfort undocumented workers in any way other than assisting them in immediately (or seemingly so) life threatening situations and concurrently reporting the person to the police. Providing such aid would be punishable by fines equal to triple the monetary value of any aid provided and a minimum, non-suspendable, jail term of five years. I think that would stop people from hiring illegals.
  3. I would declare that illegal immigrants have no rights that accrue to U.S. citizens beyond basic human rights. With the passage of ACA, the right to healthcare, aside from that needed to ensure one won't expire before being deported, is something I would also deny to apprehended illegal aliens.
  4. I would buy a fleet of buses and put lots of them in every major city, and perhaps a few at key U.S. border locations.
  5. I would establish holding facilities in those same locations. The facilities would be capable of holding 20 people more than can the buses.
  6. When a cop apprehends anyone over 16, or anyone who appears to be 18 or older, they either have their passport or they don't. Those who don't are instantly declared illegal immigrants and processed accordingly. Anyone -- I don't care what one looks like, what accent one has, how one is dressed, etc. -- who gets apprehended without their passport had better have something that by the "preponderance of evidence" indicates they probably are citizens or legal residents, and that something better be verifiable within 120 hours. Does that mean some legal residents get processed as illegals? That could happen.
  7. When the facility has enough people to fill a bus, I'd fill the bus, and start driving to the Mexico border. The bus may need to have multiple drivers who drive in shifts, but that bus would stop only for refueling, food and water. As anyone who's taken a "road trip" knows, there're plenty of places to do all that at once and the bus can have a restroom inside.

    Equip the buses reasonably: decently reclining seats, two toilets, perhaps some entertainment capability and maybe even a few other de minimus comforts. Why? Because I want the illegals gone, not uncomfortable, cranky, pissed off, etc. for the remainder of their visit to U.S. For some of them, it may be the most pleasant trip they've been on. I'm okay with that. I know from my own experience that comfortable people on long trips take naps, chat quietly amongst themselves, etc. Basically, they sit down, they shut up, and let you drive in peace. That's what I want them to do while they are on the bus.
  8. When the bus gets to the border, I'd let the passengers off, give each $50, enough food and water to get to the nearest town, and an application for residency if they want to try coming back the legal way.
Does my idea have problems? Of course it does, but that's okay. It's a start and I think the problems it has can be solved. The two biggest problems it has and for which I don't have a solution are:
  • Figuring out who came from where. Obviously, if they say they came from Mexico, I'll take their word for it.
  • Collaborating with Mexico to get them to take back their people.
Clearly, my idea doesn't solve the problem of what to do with the remaining 5.5 million illegals. That said, cutting the illegal immigrant population in half strikes me as a good start.


The fact is that unlike the CIS, I don't have any issue with whether legal immigration amounts to many or only a few people coming into U.S. I don't have a problem with admitting lots of folks from other nations if they want to come join our society and contribute to it. My issue is with
  • the people to U.S. who got here illegally, and
  • the people who got here legally, but didn't leave as promised.
I have a problem with folks who cheated their way into being/staying in my country. I have issues with anyone, citizen or not, who demonstrates a lack of integrity. It doesn't matter whether they do so by cheating on a test, cheating to get into the country, lying to me or others, telling half a story when one writes an article, deflating a damn football, whatever. I really don't care how one betrays my trust.

I'm willing to be quite generous in many ways, and that may be why you think I'm a liberal, but in return, I demand utmost integrity and the highest ethical standards. I'm not a liberal; I'm not a conservative. I'm smart; I'm a thinker; I'm a problem solver, and I'm not perfect, but I don't need to be because nobody else is either.

All the best.
Attached Images
File Type: pdf 14_1120_PDF Document 2.pdf (137.5 KB, 137 views)
File Type: pdf 2014-11-19-PDF Document 1.pdf (340.2 KB, 131 views)
__________________
Cheers,
Tony

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'07, e92 335i, Sparkling Graphite, Coral Leather, Aluminum, 6-speed
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:18 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST