Author Topic: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law  (Read 3170 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #75 on: April 18, 2019, 11:09:40 AM »

Online slamtheking

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20557
  • Tommy Points: 9097
Quote
I'll profess my ignorance on this issue but shouldn't this individual have been doing prison time for the offenses he committed in this country rather than being deported?  Once he served his sentence, wouldn't he have been deported at that point? 

That's the problem:  if a jurisdiction ignores ICE detainer requests, and refuses to let ICE know when an illegal immigrant is in custody, then the criminal can't be deported.

That's why conservatives hate "sanctuary" so much.  We should all agree that at least for violent felons who are here illegally, jurisdictions should do everything in their power to get them deported (before or after serving their sentence).  Instead, mostly Democrat jurisdictions fight this tooth and nail.  It's why I'm skeptical when I hear that Democrats are serious about combating illegal immigration. 
ok, so just to clarify, if they don't report a criminal immigrant to ICE, that would just make them a criminal subject to our laws and incarceration (if convicted and sentenced) wouldn't it?  it's not like they're just going to let them go free. 
if the person is reported to ICE and they're deported, wouldn't that be exactly what happened here?

I'm skeptical criminals would get the 'sanctuary' treatment.  perhaps I'm just being naive about that.  I'm not thrilled with the sanctuary city concept but I get the proponents argument against just rounding up people for the sake of rounding them up.  Yes, they're illegal but there's bigger fish to fry in terms of criminal activity (immigrant or citizen) that should be addressed before going after those that are just keeping their heads down and trying to make a better life for themselves and families. 

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #76 on: April 18, 2019, 11:33:15 AM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 38049
  • Tommy Points: -27440
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
I'll profess my ignorance on this issue but shouldn't this individual have been doing prison time for the offenses he committed in this country rather than being deported?  Once he served his sentence, wouldn't he have been deported at that point? 

That's the problem:  if a jurisdiction ignores ICE detainer requests, and refuses to let ICE know when an illegal immigrant is in custody, then the criminal can't be deported.

That's why conservatives hate "sanctuary" so much.  We should all agree that at least for violent felons who are here illegally, jurisdictions should do everything in their power to get them deported (before or after serving their sentence).  Instead, mostly Democrat jurisdictions fight this tooth and nail.  It's why I'm skeptical when I hear that Democrats are serious about combating illegal immigration. 
ok, so just to clarify, if they don't report a criminal immigrant to ICE, that would just make them a criminal subject to our laws and incarceration (if convicted and sentenced) wouldn't it?  it's not like they're just going to let them go free. 
if the person is reported to ICE and they're deported, wouldn't that be exactly what happened here?

You're correct that if an illegal immigrant is convicted in state court, they're simply convicted and sentenced.  That conviction can be used as a basis for a later deportation when ICE eventually catches up to the person. 

The difference between that and what happened here is that ICE made something like a dozen prior requests to have this guy detained, but each time they were denied.  Had those requests for detainer been honored, the murder here wouldn't have happened, as this guy would have been deported.

Quote
I'm skeptical criminals would get the 'sanctuary' treatment.  perhaps I'm just being naive about that.

Do some research into it.  This is where all the conservative angst comes from.

At least from my perspective, I don't care that much if cities turn a blind eye to non-violent misdemeanors.  I saw a recent case up here where a guy was subject to an ICE detainer (which was honored) after being picked up on a vehicle registration violation.  On something like that, I think it's discretionary.  But, here we had a violent felon who had been previously deported.  Instead of complying with ICE, he was given probation, and went on to murder somebody. 

So, here, I think we're probably in agreement, and I'd like to think that at least 80% of the country would be.  I think this extremist, far-left position of sanctuary for all is creeping into the mainstream discourse, and I think that we need strong voices in the middle to call it out.  Unfortunately, our country is so [dang] divided that nobody is willing to disagree with the loudest voices in party leadership, for fear of ceding ground to the "other side".

I mean, as a starting point can we all agree that 1. we don't separate illegally immigrating kids from their families, and 2. that all sides comply with attempts to deport violent felons?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #77 on: April 18, 2019, 11:51:05 AM »

Online slamtheking

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20557
  • Tommy Points: 9097
Quote
I'll profess my ignorance on this issue but shouldn't this individual have been doing prison time for the offenses he committed in this country rather than being deported?  Once he served his sentence, wouldn't he have been deported at that point? 

That's the problem:  if a jurisdiction ignores ICE detainer requests, and refuses to let ICE know when an illegal immigrant is in custody, then the criminal can't be deported.

That's why conservatives hate "sanctuary" so much.  We should all agree that at least for violent felons who are here illegally, jurisdictions should do everything in their power to get them deported (before or after serving their sentence).  Instead, mostly Democrat jurisdictions fight this tooth and nail.  It's why I'm skeptical when I hear that Democrats are serious about combating illegal immigration. 
ok, so just to clarify, if they don't report a criminal immigrant to ICE, that would just make them a criminal subject to our laws and incarceration (if convicted and sentenced) wouldn't it?  it's not like they're just going to let them go free. 
if the person is reported to ICE and they're deported, wouldn't that be exactly what happened here?

You're correct that if an illegal immigrant is convicted in state court, they're simply convicted and sentenced.  That conviction can be used as a basis for a later deportation when ICE eventually catches up to the person. 

The difference between that and what happened here is that ICE made something like a dozen prior requests to have this guy detained, but each time they were denied.  Had those requests for detainer been honored, the murder here wouldn't have happened, as this guy would have been deported.

Quote
I'm skeptical criminals would get the 'sanctuary' treatment.  perhaps I'm just being naive about that.

Do some research into it.  This is where all the conservative angst comes from.

At least from my perspective, I don't care that much if cities turn a blind eye to non-violent misdemeanors.  I saw a recent case up here where a guy was subject to an ICE detainer (which was honored) after being picked up on a vehicle registration violation.  On something like that, I think it's discretionary.  But, here we had a violent felon who had been previously deported.  Instead of complying with ICE, he was given probation, and went on to murder somebody. 

So, here, I think we're probably in agreement, and I'd like to think that at least 80% of the country would be.  I think this extremist, far-left position of sanctuary for all is creeping into the mainstream discourse, and I think that we need strong voices in the middle to call it out.  Unfortunately, our country is so [dang] divided that nobody is willing to disagree with the loudest voices in party leadership, for fear of ceding ground to the "other side".

I mean, as a starting point can we all agree that 1. we don't separate illegally immigrating kids from their families, and 2. that all sides comply with attempts to deport violent felons?
I agree, if the vast majority of people can't get behind those 2 points, we're in a bad place as a country.   it'd take a strong voice to stand up to both sides and get common sense applied to most of the issues we're facing as a country.  I don't know that that voice is present on the national stage at this time.  it's certainly not in the White House nor leading Congress.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #78 on: April 18, 2019, 12:25:38 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11291
  • Tommy Points: 1334
I'd start with making it a federal crime for any state or local official to either fail to report to ICE any undocumented immigrant detained for any reason, or failure to comply with any request by ICE to detain a person of interest.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #79 on: April 19, 2019, 11:29:14 AM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3822
  • Tommy Points: 631
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

Right.  Back then there wasn't the social "safety net".  Immigrants worked.  That was there entire purpose for coming here, to find opportunity.  Now, immigrants and asylum seekers don't need to work.  They're eligible for a whole host of social programs, and they organize themselves in enclaves that advocate for themselves, often trying to exempt themselves from state law and oversight (case in point:  the Somalis in Maine have an agreement with the State that they won't be subject to local child welfare laws.)

The other factor is that in the 19th and early 20th century, the US was looking to expand its population.  That's not really the case now, when our population is 4x - 5x larger than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

And lastly, you're absolutely correct:  nobody on the right really objects to legal immigration.  Those people tend to have a plan, some level of resources, want to assimilate into our culture and get a job, etc.  But, who in their right mind wants to take in a caravan of unvetted migrants who violently break down gates to get into Mexico, and then attempt to do the same in America?  By definition, these are violent lawbreakers.  No wonder liberals don't want them in their sanctuary cities.

Your stance seems pre-loaded with the idea that immigrants today do not want to work, do not want to assimilate, do not want to get a job, etc.   That because a relative tiny handful 'broke down the gates' that that makes them all "violent lawbreakers".

I'd bet that same prejudice was voiced often by certain folks back during the waves of migration from Ireland, Italy and other Old World countries a hundred years ago.

There is a legal process that needs to be followed.  Prejudicial notions about these people should be irrelevant.  If a person or family of persons shows up at a port of entry and asks for asylum they are not to that point known to have committed any crime and should not be treated as a criminal.

The fact that our population is 4x-5x times larger should be irrelevant given that this country holds many, many times that in greater wealth.   And the U.S. is waaaaaaay down the list when it comes to population density.

The problem is really that so much of that wealth and so much of that land is controlled by so very few.   And boy are they determined to keep it.

100000 people illegally crossed the border in March. Those are the illegal immigrants that people are objecting to, not the asylum seekers going through proper procedure (although that process is regularly abused, as well).

Where exactly are you getting that figure?

The CBP's own published data showed only 92,607 total SW border apprehensions between ports of entry in March.  Another 10,885 individuals who presented at ports of entry were deemed inadmissable.   Even counting every single one of those two as 'illegals" is only a 10th of the number you cite.   The CBP's own definition of 'inadmissible' includes several non-illegal categories.  They just don't provide an exact breakdown.

The only relationship between your comments about illegals and my original post about asylum seekers NOT necessarily being criminal is the question of whether the tests of admissibility were always properly vetted.

NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #80 on: April 19, 2019, 11:37:13 AM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36183
  • Tommy Points: 5940
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

Right.  Back then there wasn't the social "safety net".  Immigrants worked.  That was there entire purpose for coming here, to find opportunity.  Now, immigrants and asylum seekers don't need to work.  They're eligible for a whole host of social programs, and they organize themselves in enclaves that advocate for themselves, often trying to exempt themselves from state law and oversight (case in point:  the Somalis in Maine have an agreement with the State that they won't be subject to local child welfare laws.)

The other factor is that in the 19th and early 20th century, the US was looking to expand its population.  That's not really the case now, when our population is 4x - 5x larger than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

And lastly, you're absolutely correct:  nobody on the right really objects to legal immigration.  Those people tend to have a plan, some level of resources, want to assimilate into our culture and get a job, etc.  But, who in their right mind wants to take in a caravan of unvetted migrants who violently break down gates to get into Mexico, and then attempt to do the same in America?  By definition, these are violent lawbreakers.  No wonder liberals don't want them in their sanctuary cities.

Your stance seems pre-loaded with the idea that immigrants today do not want to work, do not want to assimilate, do not want to get a job, etc.   That because a relative tiny handful 'broke down the gates' that that makes them all "violent lawbreakers".

I'd bet that same prejudice was voiced often by certain folks back during the waves of migration from Ireland, Italy and other Old World countries a hundred years ago.

There is a legal process that needs to be followed.  Prejudicial notions about these people should be irrelevant.  If a person or family of persons shows up at a port of entry and asks for asylum they are not to that point known to have committed any crime and should not be treated as a criminal.

The fact that our population is 4x-5x times larger should be irrelevant given that this country holds many, many times that in greater wealth.   And the U.S. is waaaaaaay down the list when it comes to population density.

The problem is really that so much of that wealth and so much of that land is controlled by so very few.   And boy are they determined to keep it.

100000 people illegally crossed the border in March. Those are the illegal immigrants that people are objecting to, not the asylum seekers going through proper procedure (although that process is regularly abused, as well).

Where exactly are you getting that figure?

The CBP's own published data showed only 92,607 total SW border apprehensions between ports of entry in March.  Another 10,885 individuals who presented at ports of entry were deemed inadmissable.   Even counting every single one of those two as 'illegals" is only a 10th of the number you cite.   The CBP's own definition of 'inadmissible' includes several non-illegal categories.  They just don't provide an exact breakdown.

The only relationship between your comments about illegals and my original post about asylum seekers NOT necessarily being criminal is the question of whether the tests of admissibility were always properly vetted.
Know what? Look at Roy's numbers again and then look at your's. 92+ thousand is pretty darn close to 100 thousand.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #81 on: April 19, 2019, 03:48:34 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3822
  • Tommy Points: 631
I think the wave of immigration is a serious issue, but it is a humanitarian and administrative issue.  It should not be a military issue.   Asking for asylum is not a crime.   People who go to a legal point of entry and ask for asylum should not prejudicially be treated as criminals until they have actually committed a crime.   And even then, crimes need to be handled with appropriate measure and due process.

From 1903 to 1914 we processed just about a million new legal residents per year.   From 2001 to 2017 the rate has been about the same.

Why is it that we are unable to handle it now compared to back then?   We are a far, far wealthier country now than then.

That wave back then was followed by massive economic growth and world influence for the U.S. over the next several decades.  Despite much of the same sort of prejudicial, anti-immigrant propaganda being spewed by many at the time, it didn't destroy the country.


Do we have the same industrial  infrastructure as we did back then? It's harder to be an unskilled worker and support yourself currently than it was back then.

Further, this "golden age" also had limits as well placed on those coming. People used to have to have proof they had a job lined up and were able to support themselves. We also had periods where we  put the brakes on immigration. One of the reasons they put limits on was to make sure the culture wasn't lost and diluted. They haled immigration until enough time past to where most that were here had a chance to assimilate.

Between 1925 and 1965, the US had a near moratorium on immigration. It wasn't until the 60's and 90's that saw changes to our laws that basically opened the floodgates.

BTW.......most don't have a problem with immigration as long as it's done legally. The problem is, it's become a vehicle for recruiting voters for a particular party. Not going to sugar coat it man, who seems to gain the most here?

Right.  Back then there wasn't the social "safety net".  Immigrants worked.  That was there entire purpose for coming here, to find opportunity.  Now, immigrants and asylum seekers don't need to work.  They're eligible for a whole host of social programs, and they organize themselves in enclaves that advocate for themselves, often trying to exempt themselves from state law and oversight (case in point:  the Somalis in Maine have an agreement with the State that they won't be subject to local child welfare laws.)

The other factor is that in the 19th and early 20th century, the US was looking to expand its population.  That's not really the case now, when our population is 4x - 5x larger than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

And lastly, you're absolutely correct:  nobody on the right really objects to legal immigration.  Those people tend to have a plan, some level of resources, want to assimilate into our culture and get a job, etc.  But, who in their right mind wants to take in a caravan of unvetted migrants who violently break down gates to get into Mexico, and then attempt to do the same in America?  By definition, these are violent lawbreakers.  No wonder liberals don't want them in their sanctuary cities.

Your stance seems pre-loaded with the idea that immigrants today do not want to work, do not want to assimilate, do not want to get a job, etc.   That because a relative tiny handful 'broke down the gates' that that makes them all "violent lawbreakers".

I'd bet that same prejudice was voiced often by certain folks back during the waves of migration from Ireland, Italy and other Old World countries a hundred years ago.

There is a legal process that needs to be followed.  Prejudicial notions about these people should be irrelevant.  If a person or family of persons shows up at a port of entry and asks for asylum they are not to that point known to have committed any crime and should not be treated as a criminal.

The fact that our population is 4x-5x times larger should be irrelevant given that this country holds many, many times that in greater wealth.   And the U.S. is waaaaaaay down the list when it comes to population density.

The problem is really that so much of that wealth and so much of that land is controlled by so very few.   And boy are they determined to keep it.

100000 people illegally crossed the border in March. Those are the illegal immigrants that people are objecting to, not the asylum seekers going through proper procedure (although that process is regularly abused, as well).

Where exactly are you getting that figure?

The CBP's own published data showed only 92,607 total SW border apprehensions between ports of entry in March.  Another 10,885 individuals who presented at ports of entry were deemed inadmissable.   Even counting every single one of those two as 'illegals" is only a 10th of the number you cite.   The CBP's own definition of 'inadmissible' includes several non-illegal categories.  They just don't provide an exact breakdown.

The only relationship between your comments about illegals and my original post about asylum seekers NOT necessarily being criminal is the question of whether the tests of admissibility were always properly vetted.
Know what? Look at Roy's numbers again and then look at your's. 92+ thousand is pretty darn close to 100 thousand.

Sorry - my old eyes read an extra 0 in that.

My last point stands, though.  My original post was very specifically not about illegals being apprehended between points of entry.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #82 on: April 19, 2019, 04:13:57 PM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36183
  • Tommy Points: 5940
Anyone seeing the reports today of a right wing militia group going out and patrolling the border near El Paso? They apprehended and detained upwards of 300 people looking at crossing the border, many instantly asking for asylum, for hours with many armed members surrounding them with what looked like assault rifles.

I guess these militia groups have existed on the border for years, but with little to no contact with immigrants trying to cross the border. But this group went out of it's way to find people, detain them under threat of being shot by claiming they were the police to the people they were trying to detain.

They are misrepresenting themselves as law enforcement and are untrained armed vigilantes holding people at gunpoint with no legal authority.

ACLU claims the group, United Constitutional Patriots are racist, but I didn't do a lot of research to see if they are. Didn't really find much in a quick search. One thing is clear that I did find out in the little research I did, they are definitely emboldened by Trump and his rhetoric. The originator of the group claims to be friends with Trump and be getting inside info of where these people are crossing from "the highest places in government" or something like that.

There are lots of ways to handle the border legally. We don't need assault rifle toting, camouflage wearing vigilantes trying to gather and detain people illegally under the auspices of being police. That is definitely not the way to handle things.

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #83 on: April 19, 2019, 04:19:34 PM »

Offline Csfan1984

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5957
  • Tommy Points: 99
Anyone seeing the reports today of a right wing militia group going out and patrolling the border near El Paso? They apprehended and detained upwards of 300 people looking at crossing the border, many instantly asking for asylum, for hours with many armed members surrounding them with what looked like assault rifles.

I guess these militia groups have existed on the border for years, but with little to no contact with immigrants trying to cross the border. But this group went out of it's way to find people, detain them under threat of being shot by claiming they were the police to the people they were trying to detain.

They are misrepresenting themselves as law enforcement and are untrained armed vigilantes holding people at gunpoint with no legal authority.

ACLU claims the group, United Constitutional Patriots are racist, but I didn't do a lot of research to see if they are. Didn't really find much in a quick search. One thing is clear that I did find out in the little research I did, they are definitely emboldened by Trump and his rhetoric. The originator of the group claims to be friends with Trump and be getting inside info of where these people are crossing from "the highest places in government" or something like that.

There are lots of ways to handle the border legally. We don't need assault rifle toting, camouflage wearing vigilantes trying to gather and detain people illegally under the auspices of being police. That is definitely not the way to handle things.
I'm unsure on the right's of immigrants but this may be a just a ramp up of things. I've heard of civilians detaining and reporting before but it was when illegal immigrants were on personal property.
Trade deadline mock team: Celtics,
Irving, Rozier, Wanna
Smart, Robinson, Dozier
Tatum, Morris, Semi
Griffin, Theis, Yab
Horford, Baynes, Williams

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #84 on: April 19, 2019, 04:20:19 PM »

Offline indeedproceed

  • In The Rafters
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42111
  • Tommy Points: 2475
  • You ain't the boss of the freakin' bedclothes.
Anyone seeing the reports today of a right wing militia group going out and patrolling the border near El Paso? They apprehended and detained upwards of 300 people looking at crossing the border, many instantly asking for asylum, for hours with many armed members surrounding them with what looked like assault rifles.

I guess these militia groups have existed on the border for years, but with little to no contact with immigrants trying to cross the border. But this group went out of it's way to find people, detain them under threat of being shot by claiming they were the police to the people they were trying to detain.

They are misrepresenting themselves as law enforcement and are untrained armed vigilantes holding people at gunpoint with no legal authority.

ACLU claims the group, United Constitutional Patriots are racist, but I didn't do a lot of research to see if they are. Didn't really find much in a quick search. One thing is clear that I did find out in the little research I did, they are definitely emboldened by Trump and his rhetoric. The originator of the group claims to be friends with Trump and be getting inside info of where these people are crossing from "the highest places in government" or something like that.

There are lots of ways to handle the border legally. We don't need assault rifle toting, camouflage wearing vigilantes trying to gather and detain people illegally under the auspices of being police. That is definitely not the way to handle things.

Vigilantes should be dealt with as such.

"You've gotta respect a 15-percent 3-point shooter. A guy
like that is always lethal." - Evan 'The God' Turner

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #85 on: April 19, 2019, 05:08:47 PM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17159
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Quote
Anyone seeing the reports today of a right wing militia group going out and patrolling the border near El Paso?

Not acceptable for militia to take action, but I lived in Texas and this has always been a  thing.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2019, 07:24:28 PM by Celtics4ever »

Re: Trump amps up hard-line border policies, regardless of the law
« Reply #86 on: April 21, 2019, 11:04:52 AM »

Online nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 36183
  • Tommy Points: 5940
Anyone seeing the reports today of a right wing militia group going out and patrolling the border near El Paso? They apprehended and detained upwards of 300 people looking at crossing the border, many instantly asking for asylum, for hours with many armed members surrounding them with what looked like assault rifles.

I guess these militia groups have existed on the border for years, but with little to no contact with immigrants trying to cross the border. But this group went out of it's way to find people, detain them under threat of being shot by claiming they were the police to the people they were trying to detain.

They are misrepresenting themselves as law enforcement and are untrained armed vigilantes holding people at gunpoint with no legal authority.

ACLU claims the group, United Constitutional Patriots are racist, but I didn't do a lot of research to see if they are. Didn't really find much in a quick search. One thing is clear that I did find out in the little research I did, they are definitely emboldened by Trump and his rhetoric. The originator of the group claims to be friends with Trump and be getting inside info of where these people are crossing from "the highest places in government" or something like that.

There are lots of ways to handle the border legally. We don't need assault rifle toting, camouflage wearing vigilantes trying to gather and detain people illegally under the auspices of being police. That is definitely not the way to handle things.
Quick follow up on this. Turns out, the guy that started the militia, Larry Mitchell Hopkins, is a former felon that isn't suppose to have the right to own or possess firearms, and so, was arrested yesterday for possession of firearms and ammunition.

The head of a far right wing, vigilante, gun toting, anti-immigrant militia is a former felon breaking the law by having a firearm in his possession.

The irony is just comedic.

https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/leader-of-militia-detaining-migrants-at-gunpoint-arrested-on-weapons/article_f90ebcc4-01ca-5a66-82d6-d84047bfc7d0.html

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required