Trump promises and proposals tracking thread.

[DC_Vol]

Keep on laughing I guess. It’s good to see you recognize the lower illegal entry rate during Trump’s presidency the report covered 2016-2017

This was my takeaway, though I skipped weighing in at the time. Comparing data that is 8 years old and extrapolating it today while knowing the border has been wide open for years is an odd hill to die on.

But it is semantics. If you crossed illegally, you’re a felon and should be deported.

If you overstayed your visa, you’ve committed a civil crime and should be deported. Want to come back? See how that visa renewal goes after an overstay.

 

[NorthDallas40]

This was my takeaway, though I skipped weighing in at the time. Comparing data that is 8 years old and extrapolating it today while knowing the border has been wide open for years is an odd hill to die on.

But it is semantics. If you crossed illegally, you’re a felon and should be deported.

If you overstayed your visa, you’ve committed a civil crime and should be deported. Want to come back? See how that visa renewal goes after an overstay.

Yeah that link was a very wide ball. A point of clarification I offered earlier first offense of illegal entry (bolded for zero ambiguity on context) is a misdemeanor second offense after deportation is a felony.

 

[LouderVol]

Saying everyone arrested by ICE is a "criminal" isn't true either, that was the entire point

If you are playing to the absolutes here, then yeah, probably not. I am making that point in another thread.

but if you just mean the distinction on border crosser vs visa overstayer I would disagree.

 

[C-south]

Why would we want the kid to be handed over to the state? He or she is the parents' responsibility, not the state's. Kiddo can go with the parents and come back when they're 18.

That’s another option for sure.

 

[hndog609]

Yeah that link was a very wide ball. A point of clarification I offered earlier first offense of illegal entry (bolded for zero ambiguity on context) is a misdemeanor second offense after deportation is a felony.

Here's kinda the way I'm looking at it...if you can be lawfully caught, restrained, detained and expelled from a country measuring angels on the head of a pin doesn't seem like a useful distinction. You are clearly a criminal in the eyes of the law.

 

[NashVol11]

Here's kinda the way I'm looking at it...if you can be lawfully caught, restrained, detained and expelled from a country measuring angels on the head of a pin doesn't seem like a useful distinction. You are clearly a criminal in the eyes of the law.

In the eyes of Trump or ICE maybe, but specifically not in the eyes of the law, which has a very clear definition of what a criminal is and even separate courts called "criminal court" and "civil court" to distinguish them

 

[NorthDallas40]

Here's kinda the way I'm looking at it...if you can be lawfully caught, restrained, detained and expelled from a country measuring angels on the head of a pin doesn't seem like a useful distinction. You are clearly a criminal in the eyes of the law.

Apparently your common sense approach is denied and the imposition of needless semantics will continue. Like I said earlier I’m sure the semantics and parsing approach will be a compelling narrative with the voting citizens!

 

[C-south]

In the eyes of Trump or ICE maybe, but specifically not in the eyes of the law, which has a very clear definition of what a criminal is and even separate courts called "criminal court" and "civil court" to distinguish them

As long as we continue all the “lawless” expulsions of illegal invaders continues who gives a flying f*** what YOU want to call it.

 

[hndog609]

In the eyes of Trump or ICE maybe, but specifically not in the eyes of the law, which has a very clear definition of what a criminal is and even separate courts called "criminal court" and "civil court" to distinguish them

Understood, but if this part of my post is accurate

"lawfully caught, restrained, detained and expelled from a country"

it's a difference without a useful distinction. If you are here illegally and subject to the above I'm not seeing where the arrestees or arrestors have any need to care.

 

[GVF]

This was my takeaway, though I skipped weighing in at the time. Comparing data that is 8 years old and extrapolating it today while knowing the border has been wide open for years is an odd hill to die on.

But it is semantics. If you crossed illegally, you’re a felon and should be deported.

If you overstayed your visa, you’ve committed a civil crime and should be deported. Want to come back? See how that visa renewal goes after an overstay.

The tech is present and realtively cheap at this point to chip those visas. You could make locating these visa violators relatively easy for not a whole lot of dough.

 

[DC_Vol]

The tech is present and realtively cheap at this point to chip those visas. You could make locating these visa violators relatively easy for not a whole lot of dough.

Reminds me another reason why the data in this study is meaningless.

It’s much easier to find the holder of an overstayed visa than it is to someone you didn’t know entered the country.

The article and ensuing extrapolation made the assumption that the probability of finding these two groups were the same. They are not.

 

[GVF]

Reminds me another reason why the data in this study is meaningless.

It’s much easier to find the holder of an overstayed visa than it is to someone you didn’t know entered the country.

The article and ensuing extrapolation made the assumption that the probability of finding these two groups were the same. They are not.

Very true. For someone that came in properly on a work visa, or whatever other types of legally awarded temporary visas there are, there is a track record of who that person is, where they were and why. They might can go off grid for a bit trying to overstay, but they left a pretty good footprint in the snow. And other countries that take this seriously are very good at rounding people up if your visa there expires.

 

[GroverCleveland]

In the eyes of Trump or ICE maybe, but specifically not in the eyes of the law, which has a very clear definition of what a criminal is and even separate courts called "criminal court" and "civil court" to distinguish them

Ah, to heck with nuance, goalposts, strawmen and Braxton Bragg. If someone looks at an ICE agent sideways, just deport 'em!

 

[GroverCleveland]

Understood, but if this part of my post is accurate

"lawfully caught, restrained, detained and expelled from a country"

it's a difference without a useful distinction. If you are here illegally and subject to the above I'm not seeing where the arrestees or arrestors have any need to care.

Strawman incoming...

 

[Ritzwatch]

This was my takeaway, though I skipped weighing in at the time. Comparing data that is 8 years old and extrapolating it today while knowing the border has been wide open for years is an odd hill to die on.

But it is semantics. If you crossed illegally, you’re a felon and should be deported.

If you overstayed your visa, you’ve committed a civil crime and should be deported. Want to come back? See how that visa renewal goes after an overstay.

It is indeed semantics. Just to clarify: there is no "civil crime." Civil offenses are punishable, but not criminally.

As an example, speeding 5 miles over the speed limit in NC is an illegal "infraction," but it is not a "crime." One can not go to jail for an infraction. They pay a fine. If they don't pay a fine, other punitive measures take place, to include suspension of one's license, etc......

The real discussion here is over immigrants who are here lawfully vs. here unlawfully, and how they behave while here; not whether their presence here is "criminal" or not.

Put more simply, as I understand it, the WH position is: If you are not here legally and don't follow our laws when you are here, we will deport you. We dont need for distinctions between what is "civil" vs. "a crime", "illegal" and "unlawful."

This makes for a very simple test: Did you follow the laws to get here, to remain here, and while you were here? If not, you do not get to stay.

I think that expresses what I have heard as the WH policy; and at that point we can debate the merits of that policy rather than try to play "gotcha" games with our the terminology we use in our questions and answers.

 

[DC_Vol]

It is indeed semantics. Just to clarify: there is no "civil crime." Civil offenses are punishable, but not criminally.

As an example, speeding 5 miles over the speed limit in NC is an illegal "infraction," but it is not a "crime." One can not go to jail for an infraction. They pay a fine. If they don't pay a fine, other punitive measures take place, to include suspension of one's license, etc......

The real discussion here is over immigrants who are here lawfully vs. here unlawfully, and how they behave while here; not whether their presence here is "criminal" or not.

Put more simply, as I understand it, the WH position is: If you are not here legally and don't follow our laws when you are here, we will deport you. We dont need for distinctions between what is "civil" vs. "a crime", "illegal" and "unlawful."

This makes for a very simple test: Did you follow the laws to get here, to remain here, and while you were here? If not, you do not get to stay.

I think that expresses what I have heard as the WH policy; and at that point we can debate the merits of that policy rather than try to play "gotcha" games with our the terminology we use in our questions and answers.

Right, a waste of time to argue which I why I initially skipped over it.

 

[NashVol11]

Apparently your common sense approach is denied and the imposition of needless semantics will continue. Like I said earlier I’m sure the semantics and parsing approach will be a compelling narrative with the voting citizens!

Blanket saying everyone arrested is a criminal is just wrong, in addition to dodging the question. The only reason we're arguing semantics is the fact that you're wrong but won't shut up about it

 

[NashVol11]

It is indeed semantics. Just to clarify: there is no "civil crime." Civil offenses are punishable, but not criminally.

As an example, speeding 5 miles over the speed limit in NC is an illegal "infraction," but it is not a "crime." One can not go to jail for an infraction. They pay a fine. If they don't pay a fine, other punitive measures take place, to include suspension of one's license, etc......

The real discussion here is over immigrants who are here lawfully vs. here unlawfully, and how they behave while here; not whether their presence here is "criminal" or not.

Put more simply, as I understand it, the WH position is: If you are not here legally and don't follow our laws when you are here, we will deport you. We dont need for distinctions between what is "civil" vs. "a crime", "illegal" and "unlawful."

This makes for a very simple test: Did you follow the laws to get here, to remain here, and while you were here? If not, you do not get to stay.

I think that expresses what I have heard as the WH policy; and at that point we can debate the merits of that policy rather than try to play "gotcha" games with our the terminology we use in our questions and answers.

It's in the WH's discretion to deport whoever they can deport lawfully, so just do that. No need to slander people as criminals on top of that when it's your job to get it right. As you said, there's no such thing as a civil "criminal," it's an infraction that doesn't make someone a "criminal" any more than a speeding ticket does

 

[Ritzwatch]

Right, a waste of time to argue which I why I initially skipped over it.

Nah, you need to reply more often, if for no other reason than I smile every time I see your Avi! Thanks for helping make my day a little brighter.

16 days 'til Vol Baseball!

 

[NorthDallas40]

Blanket saying everyone arrested is a criminal is just wrong, in addition to dodging the question. The only reason we're arguing semantics is the fact that you're wrong but won't shut up about it

Yes yes we completely understand you won a debate nobody but you were having. Well done.

 

[NashVol11]

Yes yes we completely understand you won a debate nobody but you were having. Well done.

View attachment 718263

If no one was having it but me, then I'm sure you'll shut up about it going forward

 

[NorthDallas40]

If no one was having it but me, then I'm sure you'll shut up about it going forward

Not likely I’m having way too much fun watching your undies get bunched. You are the one that doubled, tripled, quadrupled, etc.. down on this. Hey you won your self initiated and singular party debate though Braxton!

 

[NashVol11]

Not likely I’m having way too much fun watching your undies get bunched. Hey you won your self initiated and singular party debate though Braxton!

Then you're proving my point, lol. You said "like the press secretary said..." but what she said was wrong. You tried to "call BS," and she was still wrong. You tried arguing about the definition of "immigrant" for some reason and then saying undocumented immigrants excludes overstayed visas, which was all wrong. Now it's "parsing semantics," which is another way of saying what she said was wrong.

For something you weren't arguing about you sure keep making bad arguments, how many more posts are you going to write about this conversation that could have been 1 or 2 posts long when she (and you) hasn't gotten any less wrong since it started

 

[NorthDallas40]

Then you're proving my point, lol. You said "like the press secretary said..." but what she said was wrong. You tried to "call BS," and she was still wrong. You tried arguing about the definition of "immigrant" for some reason and then saying undocumented immigrants excludes overstayed visas, which was all wrong. Now it's "parsing semantics," which is another way of saying what she said was wrong.

For something you weren't arguing about you sure keep making bad arguments, how many more posts are you going to write about this conversation that could have been 1 or 2 posts long when she (and you) hasn't gotten any less wrong since it started

Actually no I’m not. You’re proving everyone else’s point. In your first reply to me you cut an excerpt and completely ignored my stance. I stated explicitly I was referring to immigrants who entered the country illegally. You ignored that and spring boarded onto your straw man and have been back peddling ever since. But it’s not you. It’s everyone else.

ETA. As I’ve already admitted I did not look up the technical definition of undocumented immigrant but that is all. And it is stupidly broad and useless. That is your only point here Braxton.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Then you're proving my point, lol. You said "like the press secretary said..." but what she said was wrong. You tried to "call BS," and she was still wrong. You tried arguing about the definition of "immigrant" for some reason and then saying undocumented immigrants excludes overstayed visas, which was all wrong. Now it's "parsing semantics," which is another way of saying what she said was wrong.

For something you weren't arguing about you sure keep making bad arguments, how many more posts are you going to write about this conversation that could have been 1 or 2 posts long when she (and you) hasn't gotten any less wrong since it started

Are you a lawyer? Because that is the only occupation that would make sense for you at this point.