P
pnewton
Guest
I think that we are all in agreement on this. It is to that end that they want to act in that capacity, rather than as ICE agents.
- Status
A
Annie
Guest
So you think that the actions police take should be based on the majority rule of people whomeither don’t care or have ties with the people who have acted in such a way that penalties can be enacted against them?
actually, a surprising number of people who immigrated legally are also against people who are here illegally, if only because they are negatively affected by their presence. Most people who are here legally don’t want to live here with gang members, drug dealers, etc., in their midst, nor do they want to compete for jobs with people who work under the table.
Many people can understand that it is necessary for laws to be enforced in order to have a stable nation in which people can function peacefully.
actually, a surprising number of people who immigrated legally are also against people who are here illegally, if only because they are negatively affected by their presence. Most people who are here legally don’t want to live here with gang members, drug dealers, etc., in their midst, nor do they want to compete for jobs with people who work under the table.
Many people can understand that it is necessary for laws to be enforced in order to have a stable nation in which people can function peacefully.
P
pnewton
Guest
The electorate of civic leaders are all citizens, just citizens of that locality, not across the nation.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I think it is legitimate for police to take the will of the majority into account, along with other factors. Certainly they would not base their decisions solely on the current sense of what the majority wants.
…and cities with such numbers of people objecting to undocumented immigrants don’t become sanctuary cities.
The police in sanctuary cities are not necessarily against ICE enforcing immigration laws. They just don’t want to be the ones to do it for them.
T
Theo520
Guest
I referred to 99% of the legal code, not city residents
In certain communities, I’m sure much of the legal code is not popular.
Should the police only enforce popular legal code for each community, so they have stronger trust?
P
pnewton
Guest
How about they only enforce that which they are hired to enforce? For example, some speed zones are extremely unpopular, but I would not expect ICE to hand out speeding tickets.
T
Theo520
Guest
It seems you are not up on the whole issue. Nobody is asking them to do passport and citizenship checks on random individuals. Holding someone for an ICE interview is not against the law, they regularly will pass someone guilty of Fed law to the feds when they come across them in their normal work.
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
You are most mistaken about me. I do not know how many you have helped deport, but I have helped deport quite a few. Yes, agencies will hold anyone for a criminal detainer from any agency.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
You seem to be contradicting yourself then.
What laws are we asking them to enforce, that they were not hired to do?
What I read is that some jurisdictions are refusing to cooperate with the feds in just one specific area, but not others. I find it hypocritical they will hold someone on a Federal Hate Crime but not other violations that are less ‘popular’.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The police should enforce all the laws applicable to police in their jurisdiction. Immigration rules are not their jurisdiction.LeafByNiggle:
I referred to 99% of the legal code, not city residents
In certain communities, I’m sure much of the legal code is not popular.
Should the police only enforce popular legal code for each community, so they have stronger trust?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Not hypocritical at all. Pragmatic.
T
Theo520
Guest
Using it as an excuse for inaction is hypocritical then, maybe not that they do put more support behind some fed laws than others.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I’m having trouble seeing how this is hypocrisy. I thought hypocrisy was when one criticized someone for something, but was guilty of the same thing themselves. Show me how that applies to police declining to assist ICE.LeafByNiggle:
Using it as an excuse for inaction is hypocritical then, maybe not that they do put more support behind some fed laws than others.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
If they won’t hold someone for ICE because they insist they are not hired to enforce Fed laws, but they will hold someone for the FBI, Secret Service, or other Fed enforcement agencies.
Do you honestly imagine they wouldn’t hold someone for a potential Fed Hate Crime, or for counter-fitting?
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The most you can call that is an inconsistency, but it definitely does not fit the definition of hypocrisy.LeafByNiggle:
If they won’t hold someone for ICE because they insist they are not hired to enforce Fed laws, but they will hold someone for the FBI, Secret Service, or other Fed enforcement agencies.
Do you honestly imagine they wouldn’t hold someone for a potential Fed Hate Crime, or for counter-fitting?
T
Theo520
Guest
ROFL, such inconsistency is by definition hypocrisy.
“the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.”
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The choice of which federal laws to enforce is not a moral choice. So it has nothing to do with moral standards. These are pragmatic standards.LeafByNiggle:
ROFL, such inconsistency is by definition hypocrisy.
“the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform; pretense.”
Even still, the police gave a reason why they do not have to enforce immigration law. That means it is up to them. And they decided for pragmatic reasons that do not apply to another federal law.
T
Theo520
Guest
It would be honest to claim they won’t help because they don’t want to,
but I’ve read is they claim they can’t or shouldn’t.
The hypocrisy comes from the excuse they use
but I’ve read is they claim they can’t or shouldn’t.
The hypocrisy comes from the excuse they use
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
You probably missed the entire point of that movie, methinks.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Unless the illegal immigrants prove to have a record of breaking other laws as well. Illegal immigrants should not get a pass from criminal prosecution simply because they are not citizens.
If a citizen gets a parking ticket (a violation of civil las) and in the process of issuing the parking ticket, it is discovered that there is a warrant for his arrest for robbing a bank (a violation of criminal law), the officer issuing the parking ticked doesn’t say, “Oh, I’ll let that slide. It isn’t a violation of civil law.” Nope. The citizen gets arrested, as he should be.
- Status