Unless there is some other reason for pulling you over (such as driving while black), speeding at 57 MPH in a 55 MPH zone is never enforced. Does that mean that police officers should be chastized for ignoring the law?
It’s not a policy; it’s the law. They’re just following the law. They have no choice. Hands are tied. Incapable of doing otherwise. Don’t like it? Change the law.
Anyone doubt for a second that if Democrats were to throw up their hands and say “fine, we’ll fund your goddamned wall if you stop this shit,” the ironclad obligation to follow the law would mysteriously vanish?
It’s a heck of a law. Interpreted one way for 10 years under 3 administrations, but now suddenly we have tent encampments and cages. Odd timing, isn’t it? If only there were something that Democrats could offer to help the situation. It’s not the checkpoints that are the problem either, is it? Noooo, it’s out in the middle of nowhere. You know what would really help? A wall. The one that Mexico is going to pay for.
I was listening to an NPR report last week where they interviewed asylum seekers who said the CBP were standing on the only bridge in to the border station and they were turning away people (this is where they are supposed to legally enter and request asylum). If they are turned away on the bridge in there is no need to do paperwork or go through any formal process. One border patrol agent told the reporter that, despite not being in the US, he had to stop recording or they would 100% stop processing people.
A camp of sorts has sprung up near the border filled with people awaiting a chance to be let in.
This was probably a bad year for the NFL to schedule those “We Love the Border Patrol!” events all across the country. Man, all those white billionaires who run the league just keep blowing it.
That’s pretty much how I see it, too. Thanks for typing it up, elbows; well done.
Hey, pal, if you can’t do the time, don’t be brought along by your parents on the misdemeanour that harms absolutely nobody ! Very simple.
There is no more “The Media” that there is “The Grocery Store.”
If you buy stale cereal at your local market, do you blame the entire food industry for your stale cereal and claim that they are all in cahoots with each other to deprive you of fresh cerial?
No. Of course not. That would be stupid. You take your concerns to that particular outlet and take care of the issue there.
Some people will buy actual Lobster and enjoy it.
Some will buy Lobster, although it is actually a bag with “Cheetos” scratched off and “Lobster” written in Crayon and wonder why they got ripped off.
Some will buy Lobster, although it is actually a bag with “Cheetos” scratched off and “Lobster” written in Crayon and, with a big crusty orange grin, give a thumbs up and say “I Love Lobster!”
Such is life but, sadly, Cheeto-Lobster lovers still vote.
Is this what you think will happen if you try to enter Canada?
She was separated from her child some time around May, 20 and has talked to him once since then. At present she has no idea where he is. Her crime is going to a port of entry with her son and requesting asylum.
We can enforce the law without doing it in what seems like the worst way possible.
The part of your question after the “and” doesn’t suggest a good-faith effort on your part to fulfill the part of your question before the “and”.
That “we” part seems a mite shaky too.
Agreed. However, most U.S. citizens are not afforded such a courtesy when charged with misdemeanor crimes. Further, the nature of this crime suggests that the defendant will be unlikely to show up for trial.
If it were not for the politically charged nature of this issue, it would be undisputed that there is probable cause to believe these individuals are committing misdemeanor crimes, and that no bond or a high bond is appropriate instead of a summons.
Cite? I don’t believe this is accurate.
Hogwash.
Is that the crime now? “Probable cause to believe”? That’s the evidence presented? :dubious: Gimme a fucking break.
Again, we’ve been doing it a different way under the same law cited now for 10 years. In the past, the majority of those who illegally crossed the border were referred for civil deportation proceedings. What exactly has changed other than the administration’s policy?
See, this is the problem with the popular portrayal:
Because it is being sold to the public as a “family separating” issue rather than a “criminally prosecuting everyone” issue, that gives the Republican party the opening to say, “Well, so, we’ll keep them together.”
The problem is, for the left it was never about saving the children, it was about finding some facet of the issue to try and force the prosecutions to stop. Now that the GOP says “Sure!” to the separations aspect, the Dems look like they’re just refusing for slimy reasons (e.g. to keep the negative press against the administration). It puts them between a rock and a hard place. If they accept the deal, then they can’t attack the prosecutions any more, and if they don’t then suddenly they;re the ones splitting up families.
And how has that policy worked? We have 2,000 children since May. It seems like a different strategy is needed as illegal border crossings continue despite this wonderful ten year policy of catch and release.
Il Douche has it tougher, he has to assure his base that he fully intends to get tough and mean, while telling everybody else he hates that and wants it to end.
If the government has probable cause to believe that you or I have committed a crime, you bet your ass we will be arrested for it. It happens every day. If a guy is pulled over for a traffic infraction and he is slurring his words, he goes to jail. Maybe he has a medical issue or a speech impediment.
Until that issue is resolved or until bail is posted, he sits in jail and any kids he has don’t go with him.
Of course that is if we and others do not see that. The rotten ones are the Republicans and Trump and many are noticing it.
The problem you are talking about is one for the right:
Maybe you missed my earlier post.
Do you believe that a month after showing up at the Canadian border you would have to sue the Canadian government to find out where your child is?