Can you be a Mormon and a Trumpite?

[_Water Dog]

I don't think that's a good comparison. My mom was super forgetful, and I remember at least one occasion where she got pulled over for some traffic violation and forgot to bring her purse with her. I don't remember being incarcerated and separated from her. I think she just explained the situation to the officer, got a ticket, and then we went on our way. Of course, that was a long time ago. It's been a long time since I've been pulled over while not having my license on me, so maybe the laws have changed. But either way, not having your license on you while driving is a much less serious offense than trying to sneak into another country, so I would expect stricter enforcement at the border.

Your mother wasn't arrested because the officer had a laptop in his patrol car and was able to pull up her ID, which included a photo, from her name. They even have systems now that pull this up automatically based on a scan of your license plate. Your license plate will be associated with a registration that will be associated with an address that is associate with one or multiple drivers licenses. And the computer will pull all this up automatically from a camera that takes a picture of the plate. Officer will have it before he even steps out of the car to talk to you. And even if this happened before officers had a laptop with access to a DL database, or you're off in the sticks somewhere, you answered your own question. She was let go because she was a friendly woman that presented a story the officer reasonably believed based on the environment and situation, and at his discretion he went along with it.

What's the reasonable discretionary decision if someone is caught sneaking across the border? Uh, they're illegal, skip judge, straight to deportation. Doesn't speak English, does speak Spanish, has no identification, can't give you a valid home address. Hmm, hmm, what's going on here?

Humans make honest mistakes.

Sneaking across the border isn't an "honest mistake." It's not a mistake of any sort, it's an overt act. Good people who cross over, I don't begrudge them. In their shoes I would do the same thing. I do not think they are guilty of anything "wrong" in a moral sense. In a legal sense though, yes, they are breaking the law. Think they don't know the score? Of course they do. They absolutely know full well what they are getting themselves into when they choose to try and sneak into the country. They are almost certainly expecting worse treatment. The places they come from have very harsh penal systems. So when conceiving what might happen if caught, that is what comes to mind.

You talk of honest mistakes. Google up stories about hunters who have been apprehended by Mexican authorities along the wrong side of the Texas-Mexico border. Literally tossed in dungeons and subjected to incredibly barbaric treatment because they were arrested with firearms. These are actual cases of truly innocent mistakes. Like duck hunting Lake Amistad and they were on the wrong side of the border, which is an invisible line under the water somewhere. I'm not aware of our law enforcement treating Mexicans the same way. We aren't arresting guys who are obviously just out on their boat duck hunting and then subjecting them to ridiculous punitive measures in order to leverage them as political bargaining chips. The Mexican authorities do act this way, though. We are incredibly respectful and gentle towards those breaking our laws.

[_Runtu]

It's hard to read this account from the BBC without cringing.

Trump May meeting: The Wacky Races of press conferences

[_Doctor Steuss]

Trying to find an analogous offense to unlawful entry into the US is pretty much a futile endeavor.

There isn’t really another federal misdemeanor that carries similarly lenient penalties (civil, or criminal). Bringing a water chestnut across state lines is probably the closest as far as penalties go. Even mailing a lottery ticket is more severe an infraction than unlawful entry.

[_Water Dog]

This. And let’s be clear, the goal has been to appear tough on immigration, while blaming the Democrats for not fixing a problem they now have no ability to fix, in order to extract concessions for things like a looney and useless wall on the border.

Not how it appears at the moment. Republicans have proposed very precise legislation specifically aimed at the child separation issue, not asking for any bargain chips in return, and the Democrats have said no... because to them the real bargain chip is bad press over the separations heading into mid terms.

Again it comes back to the argument that people like me must be for "open borders" if we don't support the administration's actions. That's nonsense. I'm all for a common-sense and cost-effective overhaul of our immigration system. I do not think building a wall is worth the massive expense. I guess that means I just want to wave everyone on in if they want to come here.

The law does not require incarceration for illegal immigrants, and previous administrations have judged that it's not worth the expense to do so. The zero tolerance policy is just that: a policy, not mandated by the law. Yes, people have voted for law enforcement, but this policy reflects a discretionary application of the law as harshly as possible.

Don't agree. The law does mandate enforcement, which further mandates deportation, which then further mandates detention. If you don't detain, you can't deport. That's simply how it works. It's the same with my traffic example. If you pull someone over for speeding, but then fail to identify them, do you think they will pay their fine or appear before court? No, they won't. That's why, if they can't identify you on the side of the road, either through valid ID or looking up your ID on their laptop, they WILL arrest you. Every. Time.

Your argument is that arresting this person for speeding is excessive. I generally agree with this, but that's not why they are being arrested. They are being arrested because we can't identify them, and there is no way to enforce the law without arresting them. And if we make an exception for this person, then that means we'll make an exception for the next one, and the next one, and before you know it everybody is speeding and there is no such thing as a speed limit at all.

Right now the state of the situation is that we don't really have a border.

Not only is incarceration not required, but under 8 USC 1325 there isn't even a mandated criminal penalty -- it allows for a civil penalty instead.

What the administration did wasn’t decide to follow the law, but instead they decided to strip the authority of prosecutorial discretion from the DHS, DOJ and state law enforcement.

In fact, in many cases, it was punishing those who were actually following the law (8 USC 1158).

It's not possible for President to strip DHS/DOJ of prosecutorial discretion because it possesses plenary powers and the authority of prosecutorial discretion flows from the executive to begin with. Looking at the law, your answer is misleading. Let's just look at it.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

(c) Marriage fraud
Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.

(d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

Look. You speak as though the administration is being a bunch of meanie pants and enforcing the law in an excessive way. Wrong. The purpose of the law is to DETER and PREVENT illegal entry. That's it. See the Immigration and Nationality Act, which explicitly orders to "control and guard the boundaries and borders of the United States against the illegal entry of aliens."

The point is not to arbitrarily punish people. The point is to stop the illegal flow of aliens. In order to accomplish this goal, Congress has given the executive these tools to work with. The executive can impose fines and jail people. Its constitutionally-enforced congressional mandate is to stop illegal immigration. If a simple $50 fine was sufficient to solve the problem, but the president was instead electing to jail people for six months, then you'd be right that his actions are excessive. That is not the situation. Within the scope of the tools that have been provided by congress, the president is required by his oath of office to go to whatever lengths are necessary to enforce the law.

[_Doctor Steuss]

It's not possible for President to strip DHS/DOJ of prosecutorial discretion because it possesses plenary powers and the authority of prosecutorial discretion flows from the executive to begin with.

Thank you for the correction.

Looking at the law, your answer is misleading. Let's just look at it.

The formatting of Cornell’s reference is a little wanky. The government’s OLRC site is a better resource. The portion you bolded/underlined after subsection (b)(2) is actually applicable only to subsections (c) and (d).

I was grossly mistaken though as far as the Title 18 fines, and their severity. I admittedly have never looked beyond Title 8. I appreciate you calling me out so I could go spelunking through Title 18 (and may I never have to wade through that unorganized government hodgepodge of crap again, forever-and-ever-amen).

But, as noted before, imprisonment isn’t mandated.

Look. You speak as though the administration is being a bunch of meanie pants and enforcing the law in an excessive way.

I also speak as if they are a bunch of poopy-pants, and doodie-heads.

Wrong. The purpose of the law is to DETER and PREVENT illegal entry.

I agree that the purpose of Trump’s decision to have a zero tolerance policy that resulted in child separation was as a deterrent. I must admit that you are probably the first supporter of our current president that I have conversed with that has readily admitted that. It’s very refreshing.

Within the scope of the tools that have been provided by congress, the president is required by his oath of office to go to whatever lengths are necessary to enforce the law.

There are other tools, that by ICE’s own statistics, are effective at prevention, and cost much less. But, as you noted above, the family separation policy is likely a better deterrent (assuming people in the countries that are fleeing here are even aware of its existence).

It's also abhorrent (in my opinion)

ETA: Ironically (or depressingly) the lasting effects on brain development and chemistry in some of the children that were caught up in the policy will make them prone to becoming the very criminals the administration claims it is attempting to keep out.

[_Water Dog]

But, as noted before, imprisonment isn’t mandated.

My argument is that it is mandated if other measures are ineffective, which I believe has been well established.

I also speak as if they are a bunch of poopy-pants, and doodie-heads.

LOL

I agree that the purpose of Trump’s decision to have a zero tolerance policy that resulted in child separation was as a deterrent. I must admit that you are probably the first supporter of our current president that I have conversed with that has readily admitted that. It’s very refreshing.

Of course it's a deterrent. I don't know how anybody could deny this. My argument, though, is that it's not punitive in nature. And the specific act of separating children is not an arbitrary element of the deterrent, but merely a natural consequence of arrest and detention. If you were to say that children are being separated as a deterrent, I would disagree with that. Going back to the traffic example, this would be like saying children are being separated from their families as a deterrent to DUI. No, that's just what happens if you get arrested. Minors will be separated, for their protection. Placed in temporary shelters until arrangements can be made with CPS, etc. The fact that we even "try" to incarcerate families together, and have special facilities for this, is kind of amazing.

There are other tools, that by ICE’s own statistics, are effective, and cost much less. But, as you noted above, the family separation policy is likely a better deterrent (assuming people in the countries that are fleeing here are even aware of its existence).

It's also abhorrent (in my opinion).

I would love to hear your solution. What are your thoughts on the president's EO related to this? Is there anything in here you disagree with? To me the way it reads is, "I order you to enforce the law. Try to be as gentle and friendly as you can, keep families together to the best of your ability when detention is necessary. Within the scope of the law, and available resources, you are to enforce the law." It seems very straight-forward and reasonable. And it also doesn't seem any different than what was already being done previously.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... eparation/

[_DarkHelmet]

It's hard to read this account from the BBC without cringing.

Trump May meeting: The Wacky Races of press conferences

This picture is symbolic of Trump's relationship with our NATO allies.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I would love to hear your solution.

I want to preface this with the statement that I am grateful I am not a politician, and saddled with the weight of trying to find the best solutions to the complex problems we face as a nation and society. I would likely suck at it. However, here are a few things I think could help.

(1) Increased border security, up to and including updating and expanding sections of wall.

We are one of the most advanced nations in the world, and a constant source of technological innovation. Our borders should reflect that. Walls need to be designed with things such as seismic monitors and motion sensors. Things like drones should be commonplace. And, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to divert some of our bloated military spending, and invest it in providing border patrol officers with the numbers and tools to quickly apprehend people crossing outside of designated points of entry. I also think it would be advantageous to take some of the foreign aid we provide to 1st world nations on the other side of the globe, and invest it in the countries where people are fleeing from. Essentially, take an enlightened self-interest doctrine approach, and try to inoculate against the disease that is causing the symptom of mass immigration.

I wish I could remember the author with absolute certainty, but I am pretty sure it was Francisco Cantu. He’s a former border patrol officer that wrote a memoir about his experience. In one of the interviews during his book tour, he talked about an experience after they finished installation of a brand new section of 18-foot-high wall along the area he patrolled. He said that the following day, the new section was riddled with 20-foot ladders. There were so many ladders that in the following weeks/months, they were informed to stop bringing the ladders back to the substation, because they had no more room to store them.

I think a wall, at least in the way that I think the president intends it, is largely a symbolic edifice, and not an effective prevention tool.

Also along the lines of increased security would be to revise and re-implement something like the Bush administration’s “Operation Hold the Line.” This was a policy that created a kind of blockade at known crossing points, and intercepted people at the border so they could simply be turned away. Bush once said that he believed this to be more compassionate than arresting people once they are already living here, or placing them in detention centers when they attempt to come across. No doubt they ended up turning the same people away over and over, but there was also a very significant decrease in the number of people they were apprehending on the US side of the border in the areas surrounding those crossing points. In other words, it worked at keeping people out of the US.

(2) Utilize alternative methods to detention.

A little over a year ago, the Trump administration cut the funding for the ICE Family Case Management System. It was for asylum applicants, but I think it could be modified and expanded to also be used for families that crossed unlawfully, and are awaiting trial.

The system cost about $36/day for each family, and had a 99.6% success rate of people keeping all of the court appearances and ICE check-ins. Comparatively (and the numbers differ depending on the source), it costs about $319/day for a single person to be housed in detention.

Intensive supervision methods also have a high rate of successful court appearances and ICE check-ins (going from memory, I think ICE gives a statistic of 98%-ish). I believe that these methods could easily be expanded and modified to help even further improve that rate to close to 100% success. The added and significant benefit of these methods is that they cost significantly less than detentions. Somewhere between $5-$7 a person, per day.

I think one of the keys to having a more successful intensive supervision program would be to take it out of the hands of the myriad of contractors that currently implement it. This is likely too big-brotherly for most, but I think it would be best if placed under USCIS, or some other DHS underling, and have some form of partnership with local LE agencies in selected locations.

(3) Legislate with the fury of a thousand suns.

I have absolutely no real suggestions or solutions in this regard. I don’t know what the answer is, or even if there is an answer. But, it seems that our current system and laws aren’t ideally designed for our current realities surrounding immigration, border enforcement, and refugees. My impression is that we have for too long just added little Band-Aids, or fixes, or modifications in lieu of making any type of large changes to how we do things. It seems like it needs to be overhauled -- I just have no bloody idea where or what we would need to start with.

What are your thoughts on the president's EO related to this? Is there anything in here you disagree with? To me the way it reads is, "I order you to enforce the law. Try to be as gentle and friendly as you can, keep families together to the best of your ability when detention is necessary. Within the scope of the law, and available resources, you are to enforce the law." It seems very straight-forward and reasonable. And it also doesn't seem any different than what was already being done previously.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... eparation/

I was sincerely ecstatic when the EO was announced. My excitement has been tempered though as time has gone by.

All-in-all, I think it is better than the policy it overrode.

After reading the text of the EO in full a few days after it was signed (I was lazy, and just went with the early media reports), it struck me as kind of a waffle to political pressure. I think it was ultimately just something to help kick the soapbox out from under Democrats (without making any truly significant changes) since a lot of Republican religious leaders had started to issue statements condemning the practice.



[Edited 172 times for typos, grammar snafus, homophone mishaps, and generally hogging all the stupid while typing]

[_Tator]

When I learned to treat politics as a source of entertainment, it all got easier.

I hate both sides.

[_moksha]

It's not possible for President to strip DHS/DOJ of prosecutorial discretion because it possesses plenary powers and the authority of prosecutorial discretion flows from the executive to begin with.

Maybe he couldn't strip them of their power, but he could tweet negative things about them and claim they were agents of the deep state working for Crooked Hilary - or possibly just say they are all jealous of him because he is the greatest being in the known universe and they know it. He might even add that he is more popular than Thanos. Just a thought.