Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation'

originally posted by: Thenail
a reply to: chr0naut

I don’t think so. We do . Why do you care ? You are obviously a globalist . We’re trying to fight for our freedoms and you’d give em all away . Your soul is trash

No, I am not a globalist. Nor am I a leftist. Nor am I a Democratic Party supporter. Nor do I want anyone's "freedoms" reduced.

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

- Martin Niemöller

a reply to: chr0naut

If laws are found to be "bad laws" they ought to be changed; but until they are charged they are still the law and must be followed. Chaos would be the result if you allow individuals or groups of individuals to unilaterally find current laws to be "bad" so that they are not obligated to follow them.

If you do not prosecute a law breaker how do you possibly judge whether or not the transgression was perpetrated for "mitigating" reasons?

How do you have "true justice" if you allow every individual to decide what is just "legalism" and what is not?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: chr0naut

American citizens commit these crimes too. Should all American citizens be prosecuted because they are in an arbitrary group of people that has some criminal members? Or would it be more rational to beef up policing to deal only with those who commit actual crimes? Remember that some of the people groups who you are calling illegals have been coming into America as seasonal workers, for a generation. Some are seeking asylum and fear to return, some simply want a better life for themselves and their families and would be happy to become citizens. They aren't all criminals, despite the recent definition of "illegals" being applied against them.

if they don't have work visas, green cards, or any of the other legal means to be in the U.S. they are illegally here and they are breaking U.S. law. hence the term illegal.

Do you have a green card or work visa?

You do realize that for ages, no-one cared if they crossed the border. Hence there are lots who did so. Now, they have been declared illegal due to policy change. Most aren't guilty of breaking any law in place at the time they migrated.

Did the Pilgrim fathers have all the required paperwork registered with the American Native nation/s? Because my guess is that most people in the US, of European origin, arrived illegally without the explicit permission of the Native peoples.

you really don't get it.

if you are short 4 bucks for your lunch, is it OK to just take the 4 bucks off the table next to you that was left for a tip? If not, why?

Yes, stealing is wrong but would you judge someone who was starving as a criminal because they stole $4 for food?

Is your life and health worth only $4?

a reply to: smurfy

Even one American death due to illegal alien entry is unacceptable.

Some will die, always, no matter what. Less will die, always, without illegal alien crime.

Simple math. I don't care about the illegal aliens and foreigners. I do care about Americans.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: chr0naut

The current administration is Republican.

President's don't write laws, so no, it's not. Basic civics.

Of course President's write laws. They just cannot submit them directly for approval. The laws need to be submitted by a Congressman, for approval. These bills are usually notated as being "by request".

An example of such a bill is H.R. 5515, a 2019 Defense Department appropriation (funding) bill.

And then there are Executive Orders, which may be argued to be 'laws' as they are classified as federal statutes, especially under the some definitions drawn from the Constitution, especially the Faithful Execution clause (US Constitution, Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5) where the President must ensure that the laws are "faithfully executed". This means that the President must have authority over the dispensation of law.

Please show some sources supporting that.

Like shooting fish in barrel.

Child Rape Suspects Released In New York & New Jersey After Local Jails Refuse To Hold Men For ICE

newyork.cbslocal.com...

North Carolina Sheriff Releases Child Molester Wanted By ICE

www.nationalreview.com...

In the first instance, the person involved was described as a suspect, that does not make them guilty. Surely a presumption of innocence while under jurisprudence means that you don't deport someone for a crime they have not been convicted of. The proper procedure is to try them in court and, if guilty, then deportation is a possible sentence.

In the second instance, the malefactor had been convicted but also they had served their time for two years. The sentencing of the court, more than two years previously, was not deportation, but imprisonment. Also, ICE was aware of the prisoner during that time and had failed to submit an arrest warrant, which was why the prisoner met the requirements of release from prison.

You are making the assumption that because they cross the border without official acceptance, they are guilty of other crimes. Blanket deportation removes the otherwise law-abiding, too.

No, you are simply lying. I am talking about the criminals. Hint, the ones I am not talking about are not law abiding, if you are here illegally you are breaking the law. This thread is not about that element though.

So, you are suggesting that the officials in the sanctuary cities are not following legal procedures, that they are themselves breaking the law? I don't think so.

What I think is going on is that some people are trying to 'tar' a particular group of people with the crimes of a few.

Ah and there's the rub!

What legally differentiates nearly anyone resident in the US from illegals? If you remove birthright citizenship, even those descended from the founding fathers can be defined as 'illegals' and 'undocumented'.

Fallacious statement not even in the same ballpark of reality. This is the problem with progressives, they make up crazy scenarios and then act as if their fantasy is reality. The only group affected would be illegals, those who have been granted undeserved citizenship would even keep it. Only those moving forward would be affected.

Then what defines you as a citizen, moving forward?

If ICE challenged your citizenship and arrested you for deportation, what could you offer as proof of your citizenship, in this brave new world?

originally posted by: DanDanDat
a reply to: chr0naut

If laws are found to be "bad laws" they ought to be changed; but until they are charged they are still the law and must be followed. Chaos would be the result if you allow individuals or groups of individuals to unilaterally find current laws to be "bad" so that they are not obligated to follow them.

If you do not prosecute a law breaker how do you possibly judge whether or not the transgression was perpetrated for "mitigating" reasons?

How do you have "true justice" if you allow every individual to decide what is just "legalism" and what is not?

No, it is the courts that decide guilt. I said nothing about anarchy.

And you don't prosecute people for hair or eye color, either. You prosecute them for breaking the law and you ensure that the punishment fits the crime. You don't do it for revenge or appearances, but to protect society, which even includes the malefactors.

There are laws that govern how we deal with rapists, murderers, extortionists, the violent and fraudsters. Just stick to the process and follow the best ideals of justice FOR ALL.

a reply to: chr0naut

Deportation decided by the federal government, and was decided. I love how you keep moving goal posts and defending criminals staying in America to rape and kill Americans rather than be deported.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

It's time states started following the law. States have rights, I am completely against state's rights being trampled. Immigration is not a state right, it is federal. Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting. Let's start putting law abiding citizens first.

"Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting."

Inclined to have a yawn there, like it or not, it's part of life, immigration or not, and it's all against the law...sooo? what does that say?

It says that if these sanctuary cities weren't harboring these turds then many people would be alive today, many people would be off drugs, many people would have not been raped, maimed, beaten, stabbed, molested or otherwise negatively affected by the arsehole that had been enjoying freedom in these so called "sanctuary cities".

Get it? Do you get what that says now? If you are still having comprehension problems with this feel free to let me know. Any anyone else that is reading this post that starred your post I would like to hear from you too, it seems you guys also have comprehension problems.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Deportation decided by the federal government, and was decided. I love how you keep moving goal posts and defending criminals staying in America to rape and kill Americans rather than be deported.

I am not "defending criminals staying in America to rape and kill Americans rather than be deported". Not at all.

By all means, deport them as part of their sentencing. But, if you are suggesting re-sentencing them after they have served their time, or sentencing them before guilt has been proven, then that is not how the law works.

In the first instance, re-sentencing them for the same crime is called double jeopardy and is not legal.

In the second instance, you don't sentence until guilt has been established and you are supposed to presume innocence during the process, until proven guilty.

It has to do with the proper process of law rather than some sort of bigoted reaction to a perceived and over-exaggerated threat. The abandonment of the current procedures of law is a much greater threat to your freedoms and quality of life.

a reply to: chr0naut

Deportation is not part of the sentence. Deportation is decided at the federal level. No one is deported for being a criminal. They are deported for being here illegally. There is no double jeopardy and you don't need to wait for them to be convicted for another crime. It's amazing how literally every single thing you post is wrong.

There are now only nine candidates in the race, down from more than 25 earlier this year.
thank the people of New Hampshire for the great victory tonight," Sanders, a progressive, told supporters. Joe Biden, 77
Joe Biden served as vice president under former President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2017 after nearly four decades serving as a senator from Delaware.


Sindhi News

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

It's time states started following the law. States have rights, I am completely against state's rights being trampled. Immigration is not a state right, it is federal. Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting. Let's start putting law abiding citizens first.

"Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting."

Inclined to have a yawn there, like it or not, it's part of life, immigration or not, and it's all against the law...sooo? what does that say?

It's only against the law when done illegally. soooo, that tells me some people/groups need to take note and respect the law. Laws are also a part of life, like it or not.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Deportation is not part of the sentence. Deportation is decided at the federal level. No one is deported for being a criminal. They are deported for being here illegally. There is no double jeopardy and you don't need to wait for them to be convicted for another crime. It's amazing how literally every single thing you post is wrong.

Then why must ICE get an arrest order approved? Surely the police don't have to apply for arrest orders? And just as surely, there are Federal immigration courts that could approve such orders?

And the whole point of the propaganda is that somehow a minority of illegal immigrants cause the majority of US crime.

And surely deportation is a sentencing option for a convicted non-citizen?

This is honestly the biggest "Why did this wait until now" moment.

Immigration is a FEDERAL matter. It's in the Constitution. It's pretty plain in the language it uses to spell that out too.

How some City or even a State could think they were going to usurp the Fed's powers was beyond me.

This is LONG overdue.

You're an American city, bound to American laws.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Razor it gets even better the Demoncrats are demanding AG Barr be fired or removed. Wow he must have struck a nerve!! Hahahaha

a reply to: chr0naut

Those first two groups should be rooted out and "came after." I support that wholly. Their positions are invalid and have no place at the table.

Not sure why you try to lump unions and the Jewish faith in with that group of degenerate criminals (socialists and commies)

Any form of government other than a Republic is unconstitutional under article 4 section 4. Commies and socialists are criminals and advocating for them is advocating for crime.

a reply to: poncho1982

Wish they'd take their sanctuary states and vote to secede already. Does anybody here believe we share a common vision/common goals/common values with them?

The rest of America should tell them to pack their bags and get out

I think you should take a look at these to headings on the web page provided;

ICE makes targeted arrests every day; ICE does not conduct “raids”
and
ICE does not need a warrant to make an arrest

www.ice.gov...

Your conclusions are based on unfounded assumptions.
The above link should help, it's a quick read..right there on the linked page.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Deportation is not part of the sentence. Deportation is decided at the federal level. No one is deported for being a criminal. They are deported for being here illegally. There is no double jeopardy and you don't need to wait for them to be convicted for another crime. It's amazing how literally every single thing you post is wrong.

Then why must ICE get an arrest order approved? Surely the police don't have to apply for arrest orders? And just as surely, there are Federal immigration courts that could approve such orders?

And the whole point of the propaganda is that somehow a minority of illegal immigrants cause the majority of US crime.

And surely deportation is a sentencing option for a convicted non-citizen?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: chr0naut

Those first two groups should be rooted out and "came after." I support that wholly. Their positions are invalid and have no place at the table.

Not sure why you try to lump unions and the Jewish faith in with that group of degenerate criminals (socialists and commies)

Any form of government other than a Republic is unconstitutional under article 4 section 4. Commies and socialists are criminals and advocating for them is advocating for crime.

Republics of the Soviet Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the People's Republic of Bangladesh. All Communist and Republics.

And then there is the People's Republic of China, the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the Soviet People's Republic of Albania, the Socialist Republic of Romania, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. All Socialist and Republics.

So, you'd be wrong.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
I think you should take a look at these to headings on the web page provided;

ICE makes targeted arrests every day; ICE does not conduct “raids”
and
ICE does not need a warrant to make an arrest

www.ice.gov...

Your conclusions are based on unfounded assumptions.
The above link should help, it's a quick read..right there on the linked page.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Deportation is not part of the sentence. Deportation is decided at the federal level. No one is deported for being a criminal. They are deported for being here illegally. There is no double jeopardy and you don't need to wait for them to be convicted for another crime. It's amazing how literally every single thing you post is wrong.

Then why must ICE get an arrest order approved? Surely the police don't have to apply for arrest orders? And just as surely, there are Federal immigration courts that could approve such orders?

And the whole point of the propaganda is that somehow a minority of illegal immigrants cause the majority of US crime.

And surely deportation is a sentencing option for a convicted non-citizen?

Those are both things that I was suggesting made no sense in regard to the previous poster's argument.

Also, you fail to explain how double jeopardy would be negated if deportment was only subject to criminality, rather than being incompliant with other minor statutes.

In the previously linked news article, ICE made the claim that they had been denied approval for arrest and that the perpetrator of a crime, an actually convicted criminal who was serving their time, was released instead of arrested by ICE.

It sounds like the prisoner was at a location known by ICE officers, and was a known criminal, but ICE stuffed up and are wanting to blame another enforcement department, and this has been further 'spun' by media bias.