Can blue light from your phone cause vision problems? Find out and learn more about your vision in the AARP Eye Center.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
212
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

212 Views
Message 21 of 80

Wouldn't it be nice IF we ALL just watched and believed Faux "news" for President Trump !

 

What a Democracy we would be IF Trump could just eliminate Our Freedom of Press and decide what we should hear and see to please his agenda !

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
212
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
205
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

205 Views
Message 22 of 80

Der Trumpers lame EO remains Unconstitutional. He wants the kids and their parents concentrated in camps indefinately, and the Courts have ruled the kids cannot be held more than 20 days and must be in "accomodations suitable for children".

 

Republicans are perfectly willing to pay their contributing contractors $273,750 to hold a child for a year or $91,250 to concentrate an entire family in a tent-city camp for one year. They do this and then have their bots tell their dupes it only costs $35,000/year, which outrages the bots, but not nearly as much as it would if the GOPerLords let the dupes know what the REAL cost was.

 

OR we could check the refugees background, and if they're not criminal and can find a sponsor, LET THEM GO. You know, just like we did with the 1.5 Million Irish, 1 Million Germans and for 40% of the entire American popuiation's ancestors.

 

But then Republican contractors operating the camps of concentration could not bilk the taxpayers for $750 each day they hold each child or $250/day for keeping the family in a tent in Texas. A real delema for the GOPerLords - how to keep the money flowing to their own pockets without having their dupes notice.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
205
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
193
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

193 Views
Message 23 of 80

@angeleyes64 wrote:

It's about time

Now what, he'll arrest the entire family and where will he set them up? 

 

Will still have zero tolerance, but he knows the Democrats wants an open boarder. He always has to add what bad things the Dem. say or want or do to blame them.


Ben Shapiro said the left "wants to have it both ways" when it comes to border security and reforming the immigration laws. 

 

The conservative radio host and Daily Wire editor-in-chief said Democrats are only interested in one solution when it comes to families detained at the border: releasing them into the U.S. 

 

"The right is actually attempting to solve this. The Democrats want to say the policy is awful, it's evil, it's Nazi-esque, it's Japanese internment in 1942. It's all of those things, but we're not gonna work to solve it because it's all on Trump," he said on his radio program.

 

He argued liberals seem more interested in "promulgating a particular feeling about this policy" rather than working toward a solution on immigration reform. 

 

President Trump tweeted out Wednesday a mash-up of clips of prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, calling for action to fix the immigration system. 

 

"Don’t worry, the Republicans, and your President, will fix it!" he wrote. 

 

It came just after the president signed an executive order to allow children to stay with parents caught crossing the border illegally, hoping to stem a national outcry about children being separated from their parents and detained in shelters in Texas.

 

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/06/21/ben-shapiro-left-wants-have-it-both-ways-immigration-policy

 

 

VIMTSTL
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
193
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
203
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

203 Views
Message 24 of 80

@MaVolta wrote:

@CS402050 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

No. The law does not require zero tolerance. As I stated elsewhere, the Attorney General has broad prosecutorial discretion whether to charge someone or not.  And what to charge then with. That’s why people can plea bargain. For example. the prosecutor can drop the murder charge in exchange for the lesser included offense of manslaughter, if the defendant testifies against his accomplice.   Other prosecutors decide not to press certain charges, or they drop others, because they are balancing the use of state resources vs. the severity of the crime.

 

Sessions was never required to go zero tolerance. Of course, he certainly has the authority to do so. 


WRONG.  What you're saying is that people have the right to decide what laws should be enforced.  First, I understand that it happens but that doesn't make it right.  There are cases where prosecutors decide not to prosecute due to lack of evidence.  That's because they cannot prove the case.  There are probably cases in which prosecutors decide on their own not to pursue a case, but they can and should be fired for that because their job is to prosecute not decide what laws they like.  And yes there are plea bargains but that is completely different from deciding not to prosecute.  And there were also been numerous cases where Obama, as well as other Presidents, took it upon himself to decide what the law should be.  And the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional.  As I said, the Constitution clearly states that it is the Presidents duty to ensure "that the Laws be faithfully executed."

 

But, as I also said before, in the spirit of fair play, I'm willing to compromise.  I'll support you in saying this particular law should not be enforced as long as you agree to support not enforcing laws I don't like.  And the point is that laws are nothing more than the set of rules that make us a civilized society.  You and I don't get to decided which we like and which we are going to ignore.  At least not without consequence if we get caught.  And that's why we have a procedure for changing the ones that are out of date and/or wrong.  And that procedure states that ONLY Congress can do that.

 

Sorry CS but TM67 is correct. There is prosecutorial discretion allowed under the law.

See section Relief from Deportation

https://resources.lawinfo.com/immigration/deportation-removal/


Below is the paragraph from your reference that addresses prosecutorial discretion.  It states that the judge can grant a waivor based on certain circumstances, NOT that the prosecutor can ignore the law and not bring charges.  It is a great example of what prosecutorial discretion really is.

 

"Relief based on prosecutorial discretion - This means the immigration judge has granted a waiver for reasons such as domestic violence, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or evidence that the immigrant’s presence in the United States does not pose any risk to national security or public safety."

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
203
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
200
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

200 Views
Message 25 of 80

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@MaVolta wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


What part of "if they entered via Mexico, I'd return them to Mexico" did you NOT understand? I don't care if they are citizens of Somalia!


Federal law requires deportees be returned to their country of origin.

 

 


Federal law needs to change. If they illegally crossed from Mexico, that's where they should be bussed into. I don't care if they originally came from Africa or not.


Good luck with that one!

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
200
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
186
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

186 Views
Message 26 of 80

@MaVolta wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


What part of "if they entered via Mexico, I'd return them to Mexico" did you NOT understand? I don't care if they are citizens of Somalia!


Federal law requires deportees be returned to their country of origin.

 

 


Federal law needs to change. If they illegally crossed from Mexico, that's where they should be bussed into. I don't care if they originally came from Africa or not.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
186
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
175
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

175 Views
Message 27 of 80

@MaVolta wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


What part of "if they entered via Mexico, I'd return them to Mexico" did you NOT understand? I don't care if they are citizens of Somalia!


Federal law requires deportees be returned to their country of origin.

 

 


You are nicer than me. I was going to say for the same reason Canada doesn’t dump illegal immigrants from Asia, the Caribbean,  and Latin America back into the US.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
175
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
167
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

167 Views
Message 28 of 80

@CS402050 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

No. The law does not require zero tolerance. As I stated elsewhere, the Attorney General has broad prosecutorial discretion whether to charge someone or not.  And what to charge then with. That’s why people can plea bargain. For example. the prosecutor can drop the murder charge in exchange for the lesser included offense of manslaughter, if the defendant testifies against his accomplice.   Other prosecutors decide not to press certain charges, or they drop others, because they are balancing the use of state resources vs. the severity of the crime.

 

Sessions was never required to go zero tolerance. Of course, he certainly has the authority to do so. 


WRONG.  What you're saying is that people have the right to decide what laws should be enforced.  First, I understand that it happens but that doesn't make it right.  There are cases where prosecutors decide not to prosecute due to lack of evidence.  That's because they cannot prove the case.  There are probably cases in which prosecutors decide on their own not to pursue a case, but they can and should be fired for that because their job is to prosecute not decide what laws they like.  And yes there are plea bargains but that is completely different from deciding not to prosecute.  And there were also been numerous cases where Obama, as well as other Presidents, took it upon himself to decide what the law should be.  And the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional.  As I said, the Constitution clearly states that it is the Presidents duty to ensure "that the Laws be faithfully executed."

 

But, as I also said before, in the spirit of fair play, I'm willing to compromise.  I'll support you in saying this particular law should not be enforced as long as you agree to support not enforcing laws I don't like.  And the point is that laws are nothing more than the set of rules that make us a civilized society.  You and I don't get to decided which we like and which we are going to ignore.  At least not without consequence if we get caught.  And that's why we have a procedure for changing the ones that are out of date and/or wrong.  And that procedure states that ONLY Congress can do that.

 

Sorry CS but TM67 is correct. There is prosecutorial discretion allowed under the law.

See section Relief from Deportation

https://resources.lawinfo.com/immigration/deportation-removal/

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
167
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
162
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

162 Views
Message 29 of 80

@ManicProgressive wrote:

@CS402050 wrote:

@ManicProgressive wrote:

No. The law does not require zero tolerance. As I stated elsewhere, the Attorney General has broad prosecutorial discretion whether to charge someone or not.  And what to charge then with. That’s why people can plea bargain. For example. the prosecutor can drop the murder charge in exchange for the lesser included offense of manslaughter, if the defendant testifies against his accomplice.   Other prosecutors decide not to press certain charges, or they drop others, because they are balancing the use of state resources vs. the severity of the crime.

 

Sessions was never required to go zero tolerance. Of course, he certainly has the authority to do so. 


WRONG.  What you're saying is that people have the right to decide what laws should be enforced.  First, I understand that it happens but that doesn't make it right.  There are cases where prosecutors decide not to prosecute due to lack of evidence.  That's because they cannot prove the case.  There are probably cases in which prosecutors decide on their own not to pursue a case, but they can and should be fired for that because their job is to prosecute not decide what laws they like.  And yes there are plea bargains but that is completely different from deciding not to prosecute.  And there were also been numerous cases where Obama, as well as other Presidents, took it upon himself to decide what the law should be.  And the Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional.  As I said, the Constitution clearly states that it is the Presidents duty to ensure "that the Laws be faithfully executed."

 

But, as I also said before, in the spirit of fair play, I'm willing to compromise.  I'll support you in saying this particular law should not be enforced as long as you agree to support not enforcing laws I don't like.  And the point is that laws are nothing more than the set of rules that make us a civilized society.  You and I don't get to decided which we like and which we are going to ignore.  At least not without consequence if we get caught.  And that's why we have a procedure for changing the ones that are out of date and/or wrong.  And that procedure states that ONLY Congress can do that.

 


Sorry, you are wrong.  We've had that discretion since the late 1700s in this country.   

 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/

 

https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/conference/ilroundtable/ILR13_CBRebeccaKrauss.pdf


I'm sorry but you're grasping at straws.  "Prosecutorial discretion" refers to officers of the court having the authority to decide what charges to bring and how to pursue each case BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.  It does not give them the authority to decide what the law is or to ignore the law because they don't like it.  If they do, they can be charged with prosecutorial misconduct.  AGAIN, ONLY CONGRESS CAN MAKE OR CHANGE LAWS.

 

But forget about that for a moment and just THINK.  Instead of letting your emotions rule your mind, just stop and think about what you're saying and see if it makes sense to you.  There are thousands of prosecutors in this country.  You're saying that any one of them can decide what the law is and/or if they want to ignore it.  For example, let's say I get in an argument with some liberal and get so fed up with the lying liberal talking points he's using that I lose my temper and kill him.  I admit I did it and there are witnesses that will attest to my guilt.  But the prosecutor is also fed up with all the liberal lies so, based on what you're saying, he can decide not to prosecute.  Does that really make sense to you?  And is that really how you THINK our legal system should work?

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
162
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
161
Views

Re: Trump to Sign Executive Order to Stop Separating Families

161 Views
Message 30 of 80

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:


What part of "if they entered via Mexico, I'd return them to Mexico" did you NOT understand? I don't care if they are citizens of Somalia!


Federal law requires deportees be returned to their country of origin.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
161
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark

Top Authors