cop, legal immigrant, murdered by illegal immigrant in xmas day

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

but CA law prohibited cops from telling ICE about his two DUIs. why is that good policy? that’s the only issue here, i’m asking for the third time why it’s a good idea. what will it take for you to answer that question, as i asked it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We know he was arrested twice for DUI but I don’t know if he was ever convicted. If the DUIs didn’t have aggravating factors I’m not sure that just because he’s illegal makes much of a difference. If he got a third he could have faced harsher charges that didn’t have any protection.

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Upper end of what you'd be OK forgiving? Multiple DUIs?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

We know he was arrested twice for DUI but I don’t know if he was ever convicted. If the DUIs didn’t have aggravating factors I’m not sure that just because he’s illegal makes much of a difference. If he got a third he could have faced harsher charges that didn’t have any protection.

Yay, you said "illegal", but, then, of course, you question if being illegal makes any difference. The premise being . . . oh, I dunno . . . that he actually has the right to be here?

You have to draw a line somewhere. DUI is probably on the upper end.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about being illegal is the line?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How about being illegal is the line?

Well then you’d just be back to the situation sanctuary laws were employed for in the first place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well then you’d just be back to the situation sanctuary laws were employed for in the first place.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are we not at that situation now? Actually being illegal puts a huge crimp in the notion that something is not illegal. Being here illegally is contrary to being here as if you have a right to be here and to being protected from discovery and deportation.

Without explicitly saying so, just about everything you say to justify the protection of and aid to illegal immigrants amounts to the notion, if not the actual fact, that they have a right to be here. It basically supports the idea of open borders. It would be more respectful if you admitted that rather than couching your thoughts in elusive language.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Are we not at that situation now? Actually being illegal puts a huge crimp in the notion that something is not illegal. Being here illegally is contrary to being here as if you have a right to be here and to being protected from discovery and deportation.

Without explicitly saying so, just about everything you say to justify the protection of and aid to illegal immigrants amounts to the notion, if not the actual fact, that they have a right to be here. It basically supports the idea of open borders. It would be more respectful if you admitted that rather than couching your thoughts in elusive language.

It doesn’t mean they have a specific right to be here, but it’s an acceptance they they are here, they are an important part of our economy and their presence as undocumented isn’t a crime. It’s a complex systems issue not something you can just boil down to extremes. Reagan understood this, HW understood this, Clinton understood this, W understood this and Obama understood this. Trump, not so much.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device