ICE Now Calling Aiding Unaccompanied Minors 'Human Trafficking' To Bypass Sanctuary City Laws
from the offline-SESTA-ing dept
In the name of fighting sex trafficking, legislators are willing to make the internet mostly worthless. Punching a hole in Section 230 protections will encourage incumbents to limit user participation and prevent startups from ever making it off the ground. Proponents claim it's narrowly-targeted and abuse-proof, but the language would allow any service provider to be held accountable for the criminal actions of users. If traffickers can't use Facebook or Google thanks to heavier moderation, they'll move onto other websites and services until those too are rendered useless by government action.
Part of the problem with legislation like this is mission creep. It may start with sex trafficking, but it will inevitably be expanded to cover other illicit content. And sex trafficking itself is its own dodge. All the government has to do is claim something is trafficking and the hammer begins to fall.
This is because the term leaves no room for intelligent conversations. Proponents know people aren't likely to speak up against efforts to fight sex trafficking, especially when they point out this sometimes includes children. It becomes a governmental blank check for enforcement action -- something that deters questioning of the government's activities, much in the way the term "national security" has limited legislative and judicial discussion about surveillance overreach.
A recent raid by ICE in Oakland, California, appears to have been carried out under false pretenses: a bog standard immigration enforcement action masquerading as a human trafficking investigation.
Following a controversial Aug. 16 raid of a West Oakland home by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, Oakland Police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick said repeatedly that the operation was part of a criminal human trafficking investigation. She also asserted that OPD did not violate Oakland's sanctuary city policy by assisting ICE — by providing several patrol officers to block off the street during the raid — because it was a criminal, not civil immigration matter.
Sounds ominous. But the paper trail undermines the official narrative.
But according to evidence presented by Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission Chair Brian Hofer at the commission's meeting last week, the raid hasn't resulted in a single criminal prosecution. Rather, the only person arrested, Santos de Leon, is facing civil immigration charges and could be deported.
This is generating controversy because it appears Oakland police violated the city's sanctuary statutes by providing assistance to ICE in routine immigration enforcement efforts. But that's not the only reason it's controversial. It appears ICE is using loaded language to redefine activities performed by citizens aiding stranded children.
Immigration advocates are worried that the West Oakland raid could be an example of a new and troubling trend: ICE has recently begun to classify the act of providing shelter and other assistance to unaccompanied minors who recently immigrated to the United States as "human trafficking," and is charging adults, often close family members, with the crime.
When someone refers to a bill containing massive collateral damage as "narrowly targeted," they're either being ignorant or disingenuous. No one knows how to exploit legislation better than government agencies, and ICE calling acts of aid "human trafficking" (or "sex trafficking," according to the Oakland PD police chief) allows it to utilize local law enforcement and bypass local restrictions.
This is an IRL example of the exploitability of the terminology tied to SESTA. It's apparently being abused to allow local law enforcement agencies to violate local laws. Letting legislation like SESTA loose on the internet will result in similar abusive acts, accelerating mission creep's inevitable advance.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dhs, human trafficking, ice, immigration, oakland, oakland pd, sanctuary cities, sesta
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Laws or Political Agendas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Laws or Political Agendas?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More bullshit!
The same logic that called them "undocumented" is the same logic that spawned this logic!
Lets just call everything what it is not in some dumb as fuck attempt to justify our political bigotry!
My shit don't stink but yours sure as fuck does!
Reaping what we sow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More bullshit!
The race towards the bottom is being driven by one side ...
that side being the riche elite ruling class, and their right/left dogma is simply being used to divide and conquer the masses.
Many people fall for this crap, it is all too easy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More bullshit!
What garbage logic is requires to believe that the poor are more noble than the rich?
They divide and conquer on their own. Yes they are being ignorant, but they are not really being fooled that much. When people join a group they know they are giving up their integrity for safety against a different group they hate more. People just know that you never apologize, no matter how wrong you are. The people that apologize are usually eaten first!
rich/poor, left/right, up/down, stupid/smart.... each group has a bastards degree in pretzel logic used to justify their garbage!
You are right, many people fall for the crap, including you, with your class warfare crap.
Of course there is class warfare, there will always been class warfare but it damn sure ain't one sided!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
Anybody can commit crimes against anybody. So what's your real point?
If it's the dividing of humanity into "sides" that make them blindly loyal to the side they've chosen that you dislike, you're not making a good case for that, either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
Do you feel sorry for the rich when the poor gather together and support a politicians that raises their taxes and forces them to fund social projects?
thought so...
each plays their games and wins and loses. When the rich get too big for their britches the poor will rise up and cluster fuck them when they get tired enough of it.
"If it's the dividing of humanity into "sides" that make them blindly loyal to the side they've chosen that you dislike, you're not making a good case for that, either."
And which side to you believe I am advocating for here? I advocate for no side. I just advocate that we all call out what is wrong and resist being suckered by fancy politicians with silver tongues talking about how they are going to solve our woes, especially if you help them defeat that other side. And if you must join a side, start by fixing its own wrongs before you ask them out to help you dust the wrongs of another group off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
Well, if helping others really does nothing to make your quality of life worse, why *not* do it? Usually people who *can* help those in need but choose not to are called "assholes".
"And which side to you believe I am advocating for here? I advocate for no side... suckered by fancy politicians with silver tongues talking about how they are going to solve our woes..."
I'm honestly curious what kind of government you'd prefer instead of one run by politicians. Since people are imperfect, every form of governing is also going to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
If that help is via the channels of compulsory giving... is it really giving? Does it really help? Or am I just giving a whole lot of money to a politician that is giving 50% of it to his cronies and the other 50% to the cause?
I am all for having a system that benefits everyone justly.
"I'm honestly curious what kind of government you'd prefer instead of one run by politicians. Since people are imperfect, every form of governing is also going to be."
Wow, not sure we have time to discuss that.
I would keep it very similar to the US. But I would remodel the Supreme Court with the following rules.
One male and female of each race and gender voted onto the bench once every 10 years. Each person gets elected by popular vote, only members of that race and gender by genetics may vote for for their preferred candidate.
Government is not allowed to prosecute any leaks that go to the American Press. Government may not meet or conduct any legal affairs in private foreign or domestic. A televised feed that is a public broadcast must attend any meetings where policy is being decided upon by two or more official politicians. During a Congressionally declared war, meetings may be held in private. No military action may be taken in secret by any American agency without a formal declaration of war. All actions performed by any member of armed forces must be an officially approved operation. Any member of government discovered to be ordering or involved with the ordering of or knowingly participating in any clandestine operations will receive only the death penalty, immediate, at end of trial, upon having been proven guilty in Public court or returned to duty after being exonerated.
Jury boxes and Jury deliberation rooms will have the words "Jury Nullification" posted at all times and free access to materials of thought leaders describing its positives and negatives.
No one will be allowed to waive their rights to a trial by jury EVER.
No one will be allowed to waive their rights of trial period through government, civilian, or business contract or any other yet to be conceived contract.
This is exhausting....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
Frankly... Who cares? The point both of charitable giving and governmental social spending isn't about making the person giving feel good, or making them more virtuous, or raising their social standing, or satisfying the doctrine of their religion. It's about helping the person in need. If, at any point when you're helping the poor, it becomes about you, you're doing it wrong.
"Does it really help?" is a better question. You do want to get the most bang for your buck.
Of course, whether the agency providing the services is governmental or a non-profit, having more of the money go towards the cause is better. And there's always room for improvement. But I think that the US, in particular, is at the point where poverty is so bad that almost any money going to ameliorate it, even if half of it is siphoned off by special interests, is necessary.
I don't think it's quite so bad that 50% of funds are being siphoned off, but I could be wrong.
That's going to be a huge bench. I can think of a dozen races off of the top of my head, and that's not counting various combinations of mixed-race people, some of which might constitute a distinct race by themselves.
And then requiring genetic testing in order to vote?
Frankly, that system sounds unworkable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Rich Are So Kawaii
Ah, the words spoken from well-fed mouths.
It's absolutely adorable what the rich think is an attack on their livelihood, isn't it?
Taxes are a percentage. You don't have to pay more than what you already have. Not even close to that. What are the rich losing out on? A cruise? A sixth car in their garage? They might have to send their kids to the *gasp* second-best private boarding school in the country?
If you're going to be a greedy dick about money that's meant to go to help people who have less, don't be surprised when the underclasses find ways of forcing it out of you. Be happy they're doing it through the politicians rather than exercising historically-practiced, less-civilized alternatives. These politicians who you think are selling you out are actually trying to save your heads. Quite literally, at that. Try to be a bit more grateful, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Rich Are So Kawaii
I know starvation... do you? I have been 10 days without food before... have you? I have seen starvation, I have have personally witnessed emaciation, have you?
"It's absolutely adorable what the rich think is an attack on their livelihood, isn't it?"
I very intellectually corrupt argument. There are people with even less than you... shall we take everything you have as well? There is someone definitely less fortunate than you now, isn't there?
"If you're going to be a greedy dick about money that's meant to go to help people who have less, don't be surprised when the underclasses find ways of forcing it out of you."
Like I said, you have no problem robbing from the rich, you should shut up when the rich rob from the poor. Two wrongs clearly make it right... right?
"These politicians who you think are selling you out are actually trying to save your heads. Quite literally, at that. Try to be a bit more grateful, huh?"
And if you do not pay your taxes, do people with guns not show up and take you off to jail?
Taxes will always be a legalized racket. Keep that in mind. the poor are part of that racket just as the rich are as well.
I don't have a problem with the poor waging class warfare back upon the rich so long as they admit it is just as wrong as what the rich does to them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Rich Are So Kawaii
Strange that you have such first hand experience yet support actions that cause more.
As for taxes, they’re the price of living in society. You hypoctically use the things they pay for directly every day, and benefit even more from their indirect benefits. You can disagree with the amount or some uses of taxes, but no decent society operates without them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Rich Are So Kawaii
The Robber Barons always can get out of the line of fire.
This "rob from the rich" mentality is nothing more than people trying to avoid their own personal responsibility. NO ONE wants to pay. Don't kid yourself that any faction is any better in this regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Rich Are So Kawaii
I have no problem paying my taxes; I've received health care and education, have driven on paved roads, have explored parks and conservation areas, which were paid for by tax dollars. I have no problem paying that forward.
I just want people who make more money than me to pay their fair share forward as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Rich Are So Kawaii
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Rich Are So Kawaii
Maybe everyone who'd like more fairness and equality in the world could try reading "The Spirit Level" (2011). Loads of datapoints comparisons worldwide for any skeptic about equality, regardless of your political bent. (Not an ad, I borrowed it from the library and it was good)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
"Of course there is class warfare, there will always been class warfare but it damn sure ain't one sided!"
Of course you contradict yourself, because - why not?
I bet those poor folk are really givin to those rich people - yeah, not one sided at all is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
worded another way... I said there will always be class warfare, but it still is not a legitimate excuse... is that easier for you to understand now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
a) the rich have far greater ability to do good in the world (or whatever non-tautological definition of noble you prefer)
b) the rich do not do as much relative to their abilities as do the poor
c) the rich are less noble than the poor
d) therefore, the poor are more noble than the rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More bullshit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: More bullshit!
You're going to have to prove that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"will inevitably be expanded to cover other illicit content"!!! -- YOU'RE FOR ILLICIT CONTENT???
And you wrote just prior that if forced from Facebook and Google, criminals will just find other sites until forced from those too. -- YUP. Criminals get chased around, usually rightly: that's the only way to keep crimes limited.
But YOU are clearly against law (not enforcement, LAW itself) no matter how well-based, favor open sex trafficking and other illicit behavior. If you were rational, you'd see that's EXACTLY what you've stated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "will inevitably be expanded to cover other illicit content"!!! -- YOU'RE FOR ILLICIT CONTENT???
So what .. exactly .. do you object to ?
Because that is what is illicit in your mind, others may have differing opinions but you do not care about them as they are insignificant peons I guess.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "will inevitably be expanded to cover other illicit content"!!! -- YOU'RE FOR ILLICIT CONTENT???
There's a difference between "being for illicit content" and "being against hunting down all illicit content with the torches and pitchforks generally reserved for the very worst of crimes (like sex trafficking)."
Dude(tte?)... You need to work on your theory of mind. If you have to assume that your ideological opponent is irrational* in order to understand their point of view, then you probably have completely either misunderstood their argument, their point of view, or, in this case, I'd say probably both.
I would suggest that, whenever you feel the urge to start a sentence with "If you were rational..." to instead, take a step back and examine your own emotional state. It's emotional reasoning, after all, rather than intellectual reasoning, that refuses to consider that someone else might rationally take a different position than you do.
If you're making an argument in a state of anger or fear or outrage, sit down, delete what you've just written, and think about the issue for a while, and try to come to a place where you can see the logic behind your opponent's position without getting emotionally disturbed about it. If you can't do so, try harder. If you still can't do so, walk away.
Because when I see someone write things like "If you were rational...," I automatically assume that the person writing it is coming from a place of emotion, not of rationality, and that devalues whatever else they have to say.
After all, if you clearly aren't able to consider anyone else's viewpoint as legitimate, why should I consider yours?
*By which I mean "More irrational than you are," as humans, by and large, suck at rationality in general (myself included).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "will inevitably be expanded to cover other illicit content"!!! -- YOU'RE FOR ILLICIT CONTENT???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "will inevitably be expanded to cover other illicit content"!!! -- YOU'RE FOR ILLICIT CONTENT???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "will inevitably be expanded to cover other illicit content"!!! -- YOU'RE FOR ILLICIT CONTENT???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember all those expanded things to stop the terrorists?
Remember when they looked at all the "terrorism" warrants and discovered they were mostly drug warrants?
Remember when they got caught using parallel construction to whitewash that terrorism only data was being used in other cases?
Remember when they decided stopping the trade of CP was worth facilitating the creation and distribution of new CP, then ran away from cases to avoid admitting how they were hacking targets well outside of what the law allows?
The ends justify the means, and they just have to slap a label on things that makes everyone give them a pass. Its easier to have a Judge give you immunity than to follow the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... and then you find out it was them distributing the "illicit content" to begin with just so that they could become outraged by the horrible outlandishness of these subhuman cretins and therefore implement their draconian measure rid us from the terrorist threat ... which apparently will never go away because they want the perpetual war ... on something - doesn't really matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You either agree with me or I try to ridicule or make a law to hurt you.
capisce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And remember when they used "terrorism" charges to lock up the mentally ill (by taking someone who wasn't going to commit an act of violence, provoking them into doing it, giving them the means to do it, provoking them some more, and then arresting them when they finally gave into the pressure)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Its not exactly entrapment, but the US government definitely doesn't have clean hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
Its lawlessness all the way down, now that the social contract is torn asunder...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
the people that tell me that I am making a mistake obviously hate me so I should call them names and hate them more back!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
Whether or not you follow the law has always been optional; no law has ever eliminated murder, for instance. You're just taking a risk that you'll face the consequences when you break the law.
Enforcement of the law has also always been optional. What was the saying, that every US citizen commits at least three felonies a day? Prosecutorial discretion means that only a small number of laws are ever going to be enforced (generally, when things are done right, the most egregious offenses are the ones enforced). Which is good, or we'd all be in jail.
Sanctuary cities are going even one step further. They're not breaking a law; they're not preventing enforcement of it. They're simply saying, "Hey, Feds, you want to lock up some immigrants? Do it using your own resources: our cops have better things to do."
Unless you really think that throwing someone out of the country, for nothing more than coming across the border with their parents as a kid, is really more important than actual police work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
When you say it that way, you only come off as a hypocrite. You imply that people asking others to follow the laws are somehow worse than those that chose to break it and place themselves and their children in a position of having to be deported.
You are tacitly approving of lawlessness and anarchy in cases where your political ideologies are being challenged. That is okay, so long as you stop trash talking anyone else breaking the law to advance a political agenda you hate!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Well
How so? Which of my own stated positions am I contradicting by my own actions?
No, I imply that there are worse crimes out there than "being in a country illegally" and that maybe the police should be focusing on those, rather than on deporting illegal immigrants who, as a group, tend to behave more lawfully than native-born citizens.
I'm whatnow? Is this about the whole "We shouldn't all be in jail for the 'three felonies a day'" thing? Because I really don't think that prosecuting every crime, no matter how small, is a good solution (especially with public defenders already overworked and prisons already overcrowded).
And which political ideologies are you talking about?
After reading over the comment you replied to, I have no idea who I'm supposedly "trash talking." Can you please provide the offending example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
It is right there in the post I quoted you. I will repeat your quote. "is really more important than actual police work."
Removing illegal entrants to the country IS actual police work. You cannot tell people its okay to break the laws you hate but obey the laws you like. The only exception is when someone's rights are being violated and NO ONE has a right to enter another country illegally.
"No, I imply that there are worse crimes out there than "being in a country illegally" and that maybe the police should be focusing on those,"
I don't disagree with that, but that also implies that since murder and actual human trafficking have not been stopped police should not even bother enforcing petty traffic law until it is done. That argument is a logical fallacy. They monitor traffic and illegal immigration to at least prevent people from thinking that the police are totally ignoring that problem fomenting even greater numbers of illegal migrants further perpetuating the activities of people getting people KILLED in the process.
"illegal immigrants who, as a group, tend to behave more lawfully than native-born citizens."
Say what? You just stated that a person who is a criminal just by being present is more law abiding than another who is legally present. Did you not bother to think that through before you posted that?
"Because I really don't think that prosecuting every crime, no matter how small, is a good solution"
I agree, we are clearly over burdened with obtuse and unconstitutional laws that seek nothing more than to turn everyone into a criminal the moment a police officer gets a hair up their ass. However, this does not compare to those. A person getting their rear end kicked out of a country they had no right to be in is definitely not the same.
"And which political ideologies are you talking about?"
The political ideology that supports people from other countries to self relocate without legal approval from the nations they illegally invade. I guarantee you that if a differing political force was inviting a group of people that did not side with your politics you would be definitely wishing to have them deported.
I am okay with ANYONE LEGALLY migrating to America. But if they try to come illegally... I have no remorse for then when they are removed.
"After reading over the comment you replied to, I have no idea who I'm supposedly "trash talking." Can you please provide the offending example?"
Here...
"Unless you really think that throwing someone out of the country, for nothing more than coming across the border with their parents as a kid, is really more important than actual police work."
That was trash talk, you condescendingly insulted their intelligence by implying something that IS police work was not, and additionally implied that they must be a bad person because a child is now caught up in that enforcement and that they should just have a heart. News flash, those of us to supporting legal immigration DO CARE! Which is why we want them to come the legal way so they don't have to face this garbage! It would seem to me, the you are the cruel one to support people coming across a border illegally so they have the risk of facing this problem.
Why is it so hard to ask that people migrate across borders legally?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
Oh, that's an easy one.
It's because THEY'RE FLEEING CERTAIN DEATH, STUPID. They don't have time for paperwork, wait periods and vetting processes when they're RUNNING FROM BOMBS AND BULLETS.
Christ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
I get it... the intellectually corrupt challenge.
America need to take care of everyone, but we need to make sure we don't do anything to those nations mass murdering people and starving citizens to death.
People like you are such dishonest and pathetic people. How about you take a little trip friend and go do some missionary work. I am sure you will be the star attraction down there!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
You would only allow those able or fortunate to save themselves by crossing the border but you would forsake all that are unable.
My way would save more, yet you claim to have the moral high ground.
What good is a man that says save just the ones that make it across but condemn the rest?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
Are you aware of the history of US involvement in Central America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
Disagreeing about what the most valuable use of the time of the police would be does not constitute hypocrisy.
>Removing illegal entrants to the country IS actual police work. You cannot tell people its okay to break the laws you hate but obey the laws you like.
Sure you can. HEY EVERYONE! FEEL FREE TO LET YOUR BLACK CATS WANDER AROUND WITHOUT BELLS ON FRIDAY THE 13TH [IN INDIANA](https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/dumbest-laws-america/amp/)! But still don't murder people!
That was easy.
>The only exception is when someone's rights are being violated and NO ONE has a right to enter another country illegally.
United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 14 (1):
"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."
I don't see anything in there about method of entry.
>I don't disagree with that, but that also implies that since murder and actual human trafficking have not been stopped police should not even bother enforcing petty traffic law until it is done.
Not at all. Lots of people die as a result of speeding; enforcing traffic law should be held as a fairly high priority. On the other hand, the people who qualified for DACA and will soon be eligible for deportation again? The people who came here as kids, have received educations, have no criminal record, and are gainfully employed? I'd rank that as a lower priority than cat-bell patrol.
>You just stated that a person who is a criminal just by being present is more law abiding than another who is legally present. Did you not bother to think that through before you posted that?
*Tend to* be more law-abiding (implying a pattern beyond one moment in time). Yes, they broke one law by being here. Every other law in the books, on the other hand they seem to do a better job following than average.
If I say that my brother tends to be a better person than me (I don't actually have a brother), that doesn't mean that there aren't occasional times when he's a jerk and I'm a really nice guy. However, you can't take that one act, that one moment, and say, "Hey, he was really mean that once. That makes me a better person."
Once they're here, they tend to be model citizens (except for the part about not being citizens).
>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well
Dammit, hit submit by accident.
Continuing...
Ahem. "You cannot tell people its okay to break the laws you hate but obey the laws you like." Sound familiar?
Really? A whole bunch of Americans were talking about coming north to Canada to flee Trump, and, while I abhor Americans and their politics, I'd never stoop so far as to have them deported while their country was being led by a James Bond villain with a bad spray-tan.
(See that there? That's trash talk - but not directed at anyone (probably) reading this article (although, if I'm wrong: Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element.))
Also, that's not an ideology. Ideologies are bigger than that. A full open-border philosophy might be an ideology; "Cops have better things to do" is barely a policy statement.
That's not trash talk. That is a difference of opinion about what constitutes real (as in worthwhile) police work, as well as, yes, an attempt to evoke empathy for those who didn't have a choice to come here in the first place, and now have no other home to go back to.
If I ever actually want to insult you, I won't be nearly that subtle about it (see above remark about Trump).
Because people are desperate. You've heard the saying, "It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission?" Imagine your life, your family's lives, everything depends on one yes/no answer, and you believe, rightly or wrongly, that the answer will be "No." Do you ask permission and risk putting them on their guard, or do you do what you feel is necessary for your family to survive, and hope to beg forgiveness later?
Although if you believe the answer will be "No," you're probably right (and President Trump wants to cut those legal immigration numbers down further).
You want people to immigrate legally? Make legal immigration easier. If you want people to walk on the pathways instead of on the grass, it's better to figure out where they're going to be walking first, and put the paths there, rather than punishing them for walking where the path should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
There is a vast difference between saying ICE should prioritize criminal aliens and supporting the idea of cities declaring "law free" zones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well
They're not "law-free" zones.
They're "Hey ICE, do your own damn work" zones.
Nothing about being a sanctuary city stops any ICE or any other Three-Letter Agency from driving up to the front door of an illegal immigrant, slapping cuffs on them, and starting deportation proceedings.
The only difference is that sanctuary cities, when issuing a ticket for jaywalking, are not going to run a check against the ICE database to see if jaywalker is in the country illegally. Because some jurisdictions will do that.
The law still applies. The responsibility for enforcing it is just being off-loaded onto the people who are nominally supposed to be enforcing it, rather than having city cops cooperate with efforts to throw those evil jaywalkers out of the country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sending Kids into this country Illegally, is still a crime and is Human trafficking. I'm all for people coming into this country LEGALLY! Many people around the world wait their turn for years to get in. That's the right way. We sure as hell can't take in the world. We have every right to protect our boarders just like every other country. I don't care how white you are, or how black you are, or any color in between. Sneaking over the boarder is Illegal and cutting the line in front of millions of other people of every color is not right.
How about trying to make your own country better? There's a idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can I get a court ruling for that?
No, States (and cities) are saying, "It's up to the Feds to enforce Federal law, and if we disagree with how they enforce those laws, we aren't helping."
Lies. Immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than natural-born US citizens.
Also, if an illegal immigrant gets caught murdering someone, they're not going to get deported; they're going to go to prison.
"Human Trafficking" generally involves selling a person to someone else. I think you may be referring to "people smuggling" which is something else entirely.
No one is arguing otherwise.
That is, of course, the best option. However, if you have little power to bring about change, and your family is starving, which would you choose? To starve honestly, or to break the law by crossing what amounts to a line on a map, and thereby provide for the people you love?
I sincerely hope that you never have to make that choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
14th Amendment section 1
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Sanctuary City laws violate "the equal protection of the laws" part. But it does not surprise that you are okay with flip-flop logic on which laws to enforce and when.
And besides, I bet you won't shut up even if a court ruling on it follows the constitution will you?
"No, States (and cities) are saying, "It's up to the Feds to enforce Federal law, and if we disagree with how they enforce those laws, we aren't helping.""
Another ignorant statement. Cities do not have constitutional authority to challenge federal laws. The states do because the cities derive their authority from the states. A city cannot challenge federal law in this way unless the state is backing them up on it. So if the state approves, that City has a case, if they don't... well.
""Human Trafficking" generally involves selling a person to someone else. I think you may be referring to "people smuggling" which is something else entirely."
Agree with you here, Human Trafficking is very different from smuggling.
"No one is arguing otherwise."
ha ha ha... YOU ARE!
"That is, of course, the best option. However, if you have little power to bring about change, and your family is starving, which would you choose? To starve honestly, or to break the law by crossing what amounts to a line on a map, and thereby provide for the people you love?
I sincerely hope that you never have to make that choice."
hey, lets just let the poor starving people just rob the banks too... I hope YOU never have to be in a position to take from others to provide for the ones you love.
You know what? I personally would be a lot less hostile to illegals showing up if they decided to learn our language and culture instead of coming over and waving their own nations flag and building little mexico's with gangs and cartels. I though they were trying to escape that shit... not bring it here! Try a NEW argument!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"You know what? I personally would be a lot less hostile to illegals showing up if they decided to learn our language and culture instead of coming over and waving their own nations flag and building little mexico's with gangs and cartels. I though they were trying to escape that shit... not bring it here! Try a NEW argument!"
I am in both agreement and disagreement. First I completely agree about the language barrier but then you are not required to speak english to become a citizen. Only have to take an english course.
Also, do you have any proof that gangs are mostly illegal aliens and cartels? Or is it just all the young citizens that our system lets fall through the cracks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just visiting.
Aliens in general are not citizens. Any one of them can be tossed out for any reason any time the Feds like. They can also be denied re-entry for any reason.
This is the reason you don't blow of your NATS if your eligible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If there is anything that is clear, it is that you have no clue about "equal protection."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the law is not applied equally, then it is not equal is it? I am thinking logic is not something you think should be a part of any discussion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Constitution is not a Court ruling (although the latter might cite the former as justification, naturally).
Actually, it would probably stun me into speechlessness. After all, so many cities have declared sanctuary that if it were truly unconstitutional, you'd think they wouldn't exist any more.
They're not "challenging" anything. If I work at StuffCo, a subsidiary of BigStuff, and you work at BigStuff head office, and you ask me to help you out with something, I might help, or I might not. But the fact that you work at the parent company doesn't mean that I'm automatically obligated to help you do your job.
The FBI, DEA, ICE, etc. enforce Federal Law. Municipal police forces tend to help them out with that, but they're under no obligation to do so.
All that designating a Sanctuary City does is to say that city cops aren't going to do the legwork for the Feds. It doesn't repeal the law; it doesn't decriminalize the offense; it just limits local police to the absolute bare minimum that they are legally obligated to do to help enforce those laws (which isn't much).
It's not illegal to refuse to go above and beyond your legal obligations. In fact, phrased like that, it's impossible that that even could be illegal.
Up here in Canada... You know, I don't mind the American flags so much, but people who fly the Confederate Battle Flag up here cheese me off.
The Star-Spangled Banner and other national flags... I figure, like every other kind of immigrant, they'll be just as Canadian as anyone else, given a generation or two.
Is that how New Mexico happened? Huh.
FIX YOUR DRUG LAWS. Seriously. This is Free Market Capitalism 101. There is demand. Therefore there will be supply. The harder you hit suppliers, the more prices (and profits) and violence will go up.
Either find some way to lower the demand (good luck with that), or find some way to legally supply what there is demand for. Otherwise someone will fill the supply/demand gap illegally. And since you'll have driven the suppliers into the shadows, and the profits into the stratosphere, violence will be the ultimate result.
The people coming up are individuals. Most are coming up to escape that shit. Some aren't. It's not right to blame the former for the crimes of the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kewl...
I hear many of the southern border crossers are trafficked here work off the transportation under slavery conditions or languish until relatives earn enough to bail them out. Others pay up front and die in the back of cargo trucks during the summer. Whatever it takes to stop the carnage is okay with me. I like Trump's method of berating the practice. Obama's method of turning up enforcement while appearing to be on the illegal aliens side just exacerbated the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Deporter in Chief
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Keep Your Left Wing Politics Out
Definition of human trafficking:
"the action or practice of illegally transporting people from one country or area to another, typically for the purposes of forced labour or commercial sexual exploitation."
While it's TYPICALLY for forced labor or sexual exploitation, it is not EXCLUSIVELY for those reasons.
If you AID, in any way, the transportation of an individual who is in this country illegally, that is human trafficking, no matter what you overly sensitive left-wing mind tries to trick you into believing.
Support LEGAL immigration. That's the REAL solution to these issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep Your Left Wing Politics Out
There's a difference between possession of illegal drugs and trafficking them (in the latter, you're selling them).
There's a difference between people smuggling and human trafficking. Can you guess what that difference is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep Your Left Wing Politics Out
What, would you check their papers first before you were a decent human being?
What does it matter if it is a family member doing this to make sure their own flesh and blood doesn't die? They aren't "transporting people from one country or area to another", they are just giving them the basic support of life since no one else can or will in many cases.
This isn't politics, this is basic human decency.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Keep Your Left Wing Politics Out
You have no idea what kind of mess you're inviting or what kind of baggage they have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]