Senator Kamala Harris-Outrageous to deport criminal aliens

[Spock]

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status ... 0147040256

Senator Kamala Harris on Feb 23 in her twitter feed>>"It’s outrageous the administration is saying anyone who might have committed a crime qualifies for deportations."<<<<<<<

Imagine the horrors, if you can, of deporting those who have committed crimes.

[littlebeast13]

Imagine the horrors, if you can, of deporting those who have committed crimes.

There goes the whole line of succession to the Presidency....

lb13

[Bob78164]

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status ... 0147040256

Senator Kamala Harris on Feb 23 in her twitter feed>>"It’s outrageous the administration is saying anyone who might have committed a crime qualifies for deportations."<<<<<<<

Imagine the horrors, if you can, of deporting those who have committed crimes.

(Emphasis added.) Not what she said. Exactly the opposite of what she said. We're a nation of innocent until proven guilty. She's defending that principle. As one of her constituents, I support her on this. --Bob

[Bob78164]

Imagine the horrors, if you can, of deporting those who have committed crimes.

There goes the whole line of succession to the Presidency....

lb13

Will someone please get tubadave working on that rec button? --Bob

[jarnon]

Remember that this is is Twitter. Senator Harris doesn't explain DHS's new policy in 140 characters. Not only are criminals subject to deportation, but anyone charged with a crime, as well as anyone ICE thinks is a menace to public safety.

Reminds me of a FB post that I saw from a group that wants Uber to exclude drivers with arrest records.

Sure, the vast majority of people who are arrested are bad dudes. But the Bill of Rights was written to protect all of us from undeserved punishment.

[Spock]

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status ... 0147040256

Senator Kamala Harris on Feb 23 in her twitter feed>>"It’s outrageous the administration is saying anyone who might have committed a crime qualifies for deportations."<<<<<<<

Imagine the horrors, if you can, of deporting those who have committed crimes.

(Emphasis added.) Not what she said. Exactly the opposite of what she said. We're a nation of innocent until proven guilty. She's defending that principle. As one of her constituents, I support her on this. --Bob

[Bob78164]

https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status ... 0147040256

Senator Kamala Harris on Feb 23 in her twitter feed>>"It’s outrageous the administration is saying anyone who might have committed a crime qualifies for deportations."<<<<<<<

Imagine the horrors, if you can, of deporting those who have committed crimes.

(Emphasis added.) Not what she said. Exactly the opposite of what she said. We're a nation of innocent until proven guilty. She's defending that principle. As one of her constituents, I support her on this. --Bob

Of course you do. I suppose you can go all pedantically semantic on this-but, to the average person-"committed a crime" probably implies conviction.

And "might have" implies a possibly unfounded accusation. Or do you have a problem with innocent until proven guilty? It's a concept I thought most Americans understood and supported, but perhaps in your case I'm wrong about that. --Bob

[Spock]

Remember that this is is Twitter. Senator Harris doesn't explain DHS's new policy in 140 characters. Not only are criminals subject to deportation, but anyone charged with a crime, as well as anyone ICE thinks is a menace to public safety.

Reminds me of a FB post that I saw from a group that wants Uber to exclude drivers with arrest records.

Sure, the vast majority of people who are arrested are bad dudes. But the Bill of Rights was written to protect all of us from undeserved punishment.

Point taken-but can we at least all agree that those who have been convicted of serious crimes-maybe, from Drunk Driving on up, should be deported?

[Spock]

(Emphasis added.) Not what she said. Exactly the opposite of what she said. We're a nation of innocent until proven guilty. She's defending that principle. As one of her constituents, I support her on this. --Bob

Of course you do. I suppose you can go all pedantically semantic on this-but, to the average person-"committed a crime" probably implies conviction.

And "might have" implies a possibly unfounded accusation. Or do you have a problem with innocent until proven guilty? It's a concept I thought most Americans understood and supported, but perhaps in your case I'm wrong about that. --Bob

OK, Bob, you got me, I posted sooner than I should have, I had not read Jarnon's post-after which I removed my post and changed my line of thought-see my response to Jarnon above. You were too quick for me.

However, since you are here. Any comments you might have on Somali Gang Wars in Sweden and grenades, which appear to be one of their weapons of choice, would be appreciated in that thread.

[jarnon]

Remember that this is is Twitter. Senator Harris doesn't explain DHS's new policy in 140 characters. Not only are criminals subject to deportation, but anyone charged with a crime, as well as anyone ICE thinks is a menace to public safety.

Reminds me of a FB post that I saw from a group that wants Uber to exclude drivers with arrest records.

Sure, the vast majority of people who are arrested are bad dudes. But the Bill of Rights was written to protect all of us from undeserved punishment.

Point taken-but can we at least all agree that those who have been convicted of serious crimes-maybe, from Drunk Driving on up, should be deported?

I agree. It seems they've had that policy for a while, but it doesn't always work:

Man twice deported arrested in Abington bank robbery

[BackInTex]

Remember that this is is Twitter. Senator Harris doesn't explain DHS's new policy in 140 characters. Not only are criminals subject to deportation, but anyone charged with a crime, as well as anyone ICE thinks is a menace to public safety.

Reminds me of a FB post that I saw from a group that wants Uber to exclude drivers with arrest records.

Sure, the vast majority of people who are arrested are bad dudes. But the Bill of Rights was written to protect all of us from undeserved punishment.

Yes, but also their victims-to-be.

[BackInTex]

I agree. It seems they've had that policy for a while, but it doesn't always work:

Man twice deported arrested in Abington bank robbery

You'd need secure borders to make it work. The past couple of administrations refused to do that, refusing to protect the citizenry of this country. Thus we get Trump.

[mrkelley23]

I agree. It seems they've had that policy for a while, but it doesn't always work:

Man twice deported arrested in Abington bank robbery

You'd need secure borders to make it work. The past couple of administrations refused to do that, refusing to protect the citizenry of this country. Thus we get Trump.

I would argue that securing our borders, in the context you mean it, hasn't been a priority for ANY administration. And you are correct that that may be one of the biggest reasons we are stuck with Trump -- it's not only here on this Bored where I hear immense frustration from people in border states about the problems with immigration. Whether it's only a perception, as some people propose, or a clear and present danger, doesn't really matter any more. Perception is reality.

What frustrates me is the emphasis on the wrong places and the wrong peoples. As is evident even from Spock's posts about Sweden, most of the problems in Europe and other Western nations are not from middle Eastern refugees, but from northern African immigrants/refugees/asylum-seekers and second or third generation immigrants. I'm even willing to blame the democratic socialist policies of European countries for this phenomenon. Those policies, I would argue, prevent upward mobility for immigrants, or at least remove the incentive for it.

To a certain extent, then, that means those European nations are not a good analogy for the US. What I do know is that there is a net negative flow with Mexicans right now, and that the proposed border wall would be expensive and next to useless for what it proposes to accomplish. Funny to me that the people who are most ardently "supply-side" when it comes to economics are all about the demand-side when it comes to illegal drugs and immigration policy.

[Bob78164]

Remember that this is is Twitter. Senator Harris doesn't explain DHS's new policy in 140 characters. Not only are criminals subject to deportation, but anyone charged with a crime, as well as anyone ICE thinks is a menace to public safety.

Reminds me of a FB post that I saw from a group that wants Uber to exclude drivers with arrest records.

Sure, the vast majority of people who are arrested are bad dudes. But the Bill of Rights was written to protect all of us from undeserved punishment.

Point taken-but can we at least all agree that those who have been convicted of serious crimes-maybe, from Drunk Driving on up, should be deported?

Yes, though I'm not sure exactly where the line should be drawn. My fundamental question is whether the country is or is not better off without the class of people we're talking about, bearing in mind the number of them who have positive as well as negative qualities. Violent crimes are easy calls. Other than that, I'd like discretion to exist so that, at a minimum, due to family ties, demonstrated productivity, or for other reasons, the immigrant gets the opportunity to prove that his or her presence is more valuable to the country than his or her deportation would be.

Donny's current policies will make enforcement significantly more difficult. A lot of law enforcement depends on voluntary cooperation from the community. If any contact with law enforcement can result in deportation, the rational response will be to avoid contact whenever possible. That means fewer witnesses, less testimony, and hard-to-obtain convictions. That's not what we want, and part of the reason I'm outraged that ICE agents are masquerading as police right here in Los Angeles, where local law enforcement has spent years building trust with the immigrant community. --Bob