You are playing with the meaning of the word and its proper application. Yes, certainly there is discretion involved in handling individual cases, but there is no discretion that is proper to deciding whether or not the law ought to be enforced. If an executive can arbitrarily decide which laws matter we have ceased to be ruled by laws.
This reference says otherwise.LeafByNiggle:
You are playing with the meaning of the word and its proper application. Yes, certainly there is discretion involved in handling individual cases, but there is no discretion that is proper to deciding whether or not the law ought to be enforced. If an executive can arbitrarily decide which laws matter we have ceased to be ruled by laws.
I was being sarcastic.
Aren’t you the one who said that when your immigrant grandfather came over, there were plenty of jobs, and that now there aren’t any jobs for blue collar immigrants? So how are they getting into “higher paid” construction trades?
I like data, not mind-reading or cynically and speculatively ascribing nefarious motives to others. Our courts aren’t exactly a model for objectivity in the Trump/Sessions era.
No, actually it doesn’t. It doesn’t even address the issue. Here is the first sentence in your citation:
Sure, and you won’t be the first to speculate that they’re risking their lives to leave their countries and traverse Mexico just to arrive at the border and make up a bunch of crap. But that’s all you will have - speculation.
I wouldn’t think that lawyers would sue the feds unless they had a for-certain case. You had stated upthread that there was “no concern” about any detention of legal asylees. I’m sorry to hear you’re not concerned. Are you attempting to deny it outright?
I really don’t know what more I can say beyond showing you that canonical law disagrees with your assertion that bishops “have no teaching authority.” Seeing as His Holiness himself backs the USCCB’s opposition to family separations, I’d say you’re on the wrong side of the Church, not to mention the wrong side of history.
It’s a moot question because it will no longer be done. But I’d side with Church leaders in saying that under these specific circumstances, yes, it was evil.
That was exactly the point I was trying to make. Some border violations deserve immediate prosecution. Some cases do not. Trump and Sessions could have said that instead of prosecuting 100%.LeafByNiggle:
No, actually it doesn’t. It doesn’t even address the issue. Here is the first sentence in your citation:
The term “prosecutorial discretion” refers to the fact that under American law, government prosecuting attorneys have nearly absolute and unreviewable power to choose whether or not to bring criminal charges, and what charges to bring, in cases where the evidence would justify charges.
Again, you misapprehend where discretion is valid. As it says in your citation, the discretion lies in the determination of whether to press charges in particular cases. There is nothing whatever to suggest that the executive has discretion to pick and choose which laws he will enforce. That discretion is valid on a case by case basis hardly means that such choice extends to the entirety of the law itself.
The problem is the period in between the time they are captured and the date of a hearing.
When lawyers can judge-shop it is not the strength of their case that matters.
Deny what? The existence of asylees who come through the front door, and try to enter legally? I hadn’t considered that situation and don’t know how they are processed. I would oppose, however, simply giving them an appearance ticket and turning them loose.
Read my comments more carefully. What I said was that the USCCB had no teaching authority, which, as an episcopal conference, was exactly what Cardinal Ratzinger was referring to when he said…it had no teaching authority. I am surprised you found it so easy to dismiss his comment.
It isn’t moot, and it will, justifiably, continue to be done.
This ignores the magnitude of the problem. Who is it that is supposed to decide which illegals get free entry and which don’t? According to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen:
No one gets in without screening. We can hire more immigration judges. We could double it from the current 350 to about 700.LeafByNiggle:
This ignores the magnitude of the problem. Who is it that is supposed to decide which illegals get free entry and which don’t? According to DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen:
“…(I)n the last three months we have seen illegal immigration on our Southern Border exceed 50,000 people each month – multiples over each month last year. Since this time last year, there has been a 325 percent increase in Unaccompanied Alien Children and a 435 percent increase in family units entering the country illegally. Over the last ten years, there has been a 1,700 percent increase in asylum claims, resulting in an asylum backlog today, in our country of 600,000 cases.”
What are your criteria for who gets in without screening?
That’s not true at all. Lots of people sneak in, that’s one of the reasons why the wall is so necessary.
You missed the context of my remark. Ender was asking me what I propose to do about not being able to screen applicants for asylum. I was answering by saying we do not need to skip screening for anyone if we have enough immigration judges. We were not talking about those that are never caught.LeafByNiggle:
That’s not true at all. Lots of people sneak in,…
Don’t worry. Trump has rejected the idea. It’s too much to spend on human dignity.
If hundreds of judges were appointed, and they were able to adjudicate these deportations quickly, the cases would dry up as Illegals would find another loophole to use to stay.
In that case we would be no worse off than we are now. Plus, those deserving of asylum would receive asylum sooner. That sounds like a win.LeafByNiggle:
If hundreds of judges were appointed, and they were able to adjudicate these deportations quickly, the cases would dry up as Illegals would find another loophole to use to stay.