I am still stunned by the news that the Oakland Mayor warned ILLEGAL workers about pending ICE operations. What in the world are California Liberals thinking?
And how do we law abiding citizens stop them from sheltering illegal workers who are harming the income potentials of our most vulnerable legal citizens?
CNN Sessions California and Illegals
FOX News Oakland Mayor Warns Illegals
NPR Oakland Mayor Supports
Is Massive Immigration an Unmitigated Blessing? An Interview on Immigration With Harvard Economist George Borjas
And how do we law abiding citizens stop them from sheltering illegal workers who are harming the income potentials of our most vulnerable legal citizens?
CNN Sessions California and Illegals
FOX News Oakland Mayor Warns Illegals
NPR Oakland Mayor Supports
Is Massive Immigration an Unmitigated Blessing? An Interview on Immigration With Harvard Economist George Borjas
73 comments:
They are the ones who pay his salary. Bear in mind that being here illegally is not a crime.
--Hiram
The first thought would be she should be arrested, tried and jailed. She did say she was "willing to go to jail" for her "principles."
Second thought is that she might become a martyr to the cause, but I wonder how many people really believe she did the right thing? Even in the land of wholesome cereal-- fruits, nuts and flakes-- I'm not sure how popular /keeping/ criminals on the streets might be.
Third thought is that, believe it or not, it might be difficult to get a conviction, and it would be a shame to offer her a platform to spew her nuttiness.
Being here while under order of deportation, or of committing other US crimes, IS a crime. I think my preference would be to arrest her for "aiding and abetting" every identified criminal NOT picked up in that ICE sweep. Even with concurrent penalties, she would be facing at least ten years. Call it a deterrent.
And her statement would be prima facie evidence-- offer her a plea bargain.
What crime did she commit or is accused of committing? In America we can't convict people unless there is a crime involved.
--Hiram
Hiram,
If warning people with arrest or deportation warrants outstanding that ICE is coming is not illegal... It certainly should be.
AT Mayor Should be Charged
MWS Federal Laws
Offering safety of any kind to a criminal who commits or has committed a criminal act is "aiding and abetting," and it CA it carries the identical penalty to what the actual criminal faces. Anyone care to guess at what the combined criminal penalties of those 100-150 criminals warned by the mayor would be?
And I like the idea of civil penalties against the mayor as well. All they would need to prove is that the crime was committed by one of the people on the ICE list but that ICE couldn't find.
Illegal aliens aren't criminals. It's not a crime to be here illegally.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Feel free to keep telling yourself that...
Now in some ways you are technically correct.
Note how carefully constructed the language is in that article is to avoid saying being an illegal alien is a crime.
Our country is in decline. One piece of evidence of that is the ease with which we accuse each other of crimes. This is particularly true when we try to claim that a status as opposed to an action is criminal, an approach to criminal that reached it's zenith in Nazi Germany.
--Hiram
From a speech and follow-up of Gov. Chris Christie:
"Q: Christie said immigrants in the county illegally are not automatically committing a crime by their presence. Is that true?
A: Yes. "Illegal presence" as the offense is called, is not a violation of the U.S. criminal code. A person cannot be sent to prison for being here without authorization from immigration authorities. It is, however, a violation of civil immigration laws, for which the federal government can impose civil penalties, namely deportation.
Q: But he was later asked a hypothetical question about someone sneaking across the border and said that's not a crime either. Is that true, too?
A: No. "Improper entry by an alien" as it is called, is a violation of Title 8 of the U.S. criminal code punishable by a fine of between $50 and $250 and/or a maximum of six months in jail.
It is considered difficult to prosecute because unless authorities catch someone in the act of crossing the border, it is easier to just deport them than spend the time and money needed to prove how they crossed the border. Even in border states, first-time offenders are rarely prosecuted because the court system would be inundated with millions of cases.
Q: So it's a crime to enter the country illegally, but not a crime to be here illegally. How can you do one without the other?
A: It's not hard, and millions of people have done it. People obtain legal visas to enter the U.S. for work, study or tourism and then simply remain in the country after the visa expires. Of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States, studies show about 40 percent to 50 percent came here legally but are now illegal immigrants."
So, not a crime, but it IS a violation of the law.
That's the problem. Nazi Germany solved it with concentration camps.
Here is the deal with crime. You have to commit them in order to be committed. There have actually been Supreme Court cases on this.
--Hiram
Let's break Godwin's law, shall we? Let me repeat: crimes are committed by criminals; illegal acts are committed by law-breakers. Neither is acceptable and to shield them from prosecution or penalty is in itself a crime. Why the good Mayor is not handcuffed and frog-marched off to jail is a mystery.
Hiram,
What do you recommend we do with all the non-citizen, non-green card, non valid VISA, etc folks we have living and working in the USA?
Let's break Godwin's law, shall we?
Well, we can't ignore the Nazi contribution to jurisprudence. The problem with Godwin's Law is that it interferes without our understanding of the nature of tyranny. But in any event, the idea that you cannot be punished for a status is basic to American law.
Whether someone has committed a crime is a complicated thing. If it were as easy as Donald Trump thinks it is, the federal facility he would be residing in would not be the White House. Particularly egregious, in my view at least, is this attempt by many to frame political disputes in criminal, another hallmark of tyranny.
--Hiram
"So, not a crime, but it IS a violation of the law."
In other words, they are not criminals.
Law says you need to register your car every year. If you don't, are you a criminal?
Moose
Hiram and Moose,
Label them as you wish.
What do you recommend we do with all the non-citizen, non-green card, non valid VISA, etc folks we have living and working in the USA?
"What do you recommend we do with all the non-citizen, non-green card, non valid VISA, etc folks we have living and working in the USA?"
Treat them like human beings.
Act like Christians toward them.
Moose
Moose,
Is that code for we pardon everyone who over stays their VISA, violates our borders, takes jobs from our low end workers, etc?
Or can we politely load them up and deport them back home where they can stand in the legal immigration line with the others who want to move to the USA?
"Is that code for we pardon everyone who over stays their VISA, violates our borders, takes jobs from our low end workers, etc?"
What does the Bible, Old and New Testament alike, say we should do?
Or maybe they are a threat to our 'free state' and therefore we should employ our well-regulated militia to bear arms against them?
What would our 'family-values' voters do? Certainly they wouldn't break up families. Right?
I say we trade: keep the upstanding foreign-born border violators and send our home-grown criminals to those countries instead. We'll be far better off than if we simply deport the border violators.
Moose
"...where they can stand in the legal immigration line with the others who want to move to the USA?"
Unless they have the wrong color skin, or come from the wrong country, or believe in the wrong god.
Moose
Moose,
It seems that you vote for...
"we should pardon everyone who over stays their VISA, violates our borders, takes jobs from our low end workers, etc and give them citizenship"
and by doing so...
"we should encourage more people to over stay their VISAs, risk their lives and those of their children to illegally cross the border, and to take more jobs / lower the prevailing wages."
How does this turn out in your head?
There are ~7 BILLION people in the world and half of them would be happy to come to America.
Please explain to me how your path ends well for your friends and neighbors?
I dunno...I guess I like being able to buy fruits and vegetables that come from California.
Moose
Yes, but California strictly prohibits taking those things INTO California. Why they don't do the same with dangerous /people/ is something of a mystery.
Moose,
You want employees treated better and paid more...
And you want to undercut them with illegal workers so that you can save money on fruits and vegetables. This gets so confusing.
Maybe Moose just likes his fruits and veggies picked with that cheap illegal immigrant stoop labor? We don't care about those folks. After all, they're the wrong color and they talk funny.
Your cluelessness is amusing.
Let me rephrase: I'd guess I like not having fruits and vegetables in California rotting in the fields because there's no one to harvest them.
Apparently, no one's being undercut, because no one else will do the job except hard-working immigrants. Yeah...those workers are very dangerous, jerry. ooooh....watch out for the boogey-man.
Maybe try proving that immigrants, legal or illegal, commit crime at a higher rate than citizens. Maybe then we can have a conversation.
...and do you really want to talk about illegal foreign incursion into domestic affairs? You lose on that count with your support of the colluder in chief.
Meanwhile, you have food on your table, that you can afford, due to two of you and your ilk's biggest boogey-men: government and immigrants
Moose
Moose, citizens are not willing to do that work for that wage. No illegals.. wage doubles. Who knows?
LOL
Moose
So you are fine doubling the legal minimum wage through the use of law.
Yet you do not think these companies can afford to pay more to get the work done if they need the labor.
Or they may choose to buy equipment that is manufactured by American employees. Or they may change their farming practices to something more environmentally friendly.
Win. Win. Win. For America and It's Citizens
Moose, if you could stop impugning my motives long enough you might contribute to the conversation. Right now, reasoning does not seem to be your strong suit. For example, many of those fruits and veggies aren't planted at all, thanks to government stupidity. manmade crisis
Second, you have to make up your mind. Do you want to continue exploiting illegal immigrant labor, or pay them more (unnecessarily) so your cost of produce goes up markedly, and to where Americans WOULD do those jobs thus cutting those folks out, or just close the border and force that to happen? I will point out that almost every Republican immigration reform includes some sort of "agricultural guest worker" program, which makes a lot of sense to me, but YMMV.
Your link is behind a wall.
"Do you want to continue exploiting illegal immigrant labor, or pay them more (unnecessarily) so your cost of produce goes up markedly, and to where Americans WOULD do those jobs thus cutting those folks out, or just close the border and force that to happen?"
I don't have any trouble paying more so that people can make a living wage, immigrants and citizens alike. Remember, it's not Liberals fighting the living wage. And you'll have to provide some proof that Americans WOULD do those jobs. I don't believe you.
"I will point out that almost every Republican immigration reform includes some sort of "agricultural guest worker" program..."
Something that would be unnecessary if your first claim were true...so now we know it's not. No need to bother providing proof.
Moose
This link looks similar.
Moose,
You can deny Economics 101 as long as you wish.
But the bigger the supply of low end labor relative to the demand...
The lower the compensation and job security of those workers.
If you truly want to help low end workers, deporting the illegal workers is job 1.
The link was about government shutting off crop irrigation to protect some tiny fish. Crops and farms died but the little fish lived. Whoopee.
It's not conservatives fighting the living wage, either. We just prefer people HAVING a job, at whatever wages, to seeing them unemployed. Working a packing plant is dirty, smelly, obnoxious work. When ICE raided a nearby Hormel plant and sent 150 illegal workers home, the next day 1200 Americans lined up for those jobs.
Ever hear of Cesar Chavez? He started a whole movement to get illegal immigrant farm workers paid better, but the problem was that so long as they were illegal, management could pay them poorly and if they complained, they got deported, were out of work and got zero. If you are happy paying for a "living wage" (which for uneducated stoop labor isn't very high) then you should be very UNhappy that illegal immigrants are working for less than what an American would accept to do the job.
Suppose we had full employment in this country (we're close) and there were still these temporary farm jobs needing to be done. Now imagine that we had a LEGAL "guest worker" program to bring in such labor. They could then demand and get better wages without fear of deportation. Your cost of produce would go up, which you claim is OK, so what do you have against these people that you won't permit it?
As for if "America's Poor" would choose to do those jobs if they paid better.
I have more faith in them than you do apparently.
"The link was about government shutting off crop irrigation to protect some tiny fish. Crops and farms died but the little fish lived. Whoopee."
I'm not surprised you have such little regard for the planet you live on. And you call yourself ProLife. LOL
Moose
"I have more faith in corporations than you do apparently."
Fixed it for you.
Moose
So, if people suffer and die, that's OK, because a tiny little fish isn't "threatened"? And you call yourself .... what? This planet makes species extinct all the time. I think it is in our own best interests to insure we are not one of them. Unfortunately, mass stupidity is sometimes fatal.
Oh, and the planet can bloody well take care of itself, AND us. The water is there, it is just that government refuses to let real, actual human beings use it.
So much arrogance in the face of the God of nature and the universe, with no sense of humility. It's just sad and pitiable.
I believe ALL life is important:
the smallest fish
the largest beast
the human embryo
the living, breathing woman
the immigrant
the worker
the poor
the marginalized
That we have been and will continue to be the cause of the extermination of so much of God's creation is shameful. That we treat strangers as enemies is shameful. That we treat workers as little more than slaves is shameful. That we allow our children to be gunned down in schools is shameful. That many of us think the poor deserve their position is shameful. To pit the survival of one species against the convenience of another is shameful. That we place the insurance industry above the real lives of real people is shameful.
You're not ProLife at all.
Moose
Who is this "we" you keep talking about? Certainly no one I recognize, at least from the world I recognize. Now, if you are willing to engage in the fantasy that all of these supposed evils of the world can be vanished by simply wishing them so, feel free. I find it easier to simply deny that I, and most everybody I know, are not responsible for any of it, but that it is simply the reality, and has been since Cain slew Abel.
And back on topic, what kind of miraculous myopia must this mayor have, to imagine that by allowing criminals to escape and roam free within her city, only goodness and mercy will follow?
"And back on topic, what kind of miraculous myopia must this mayor have, to imagine that by allowing criminals to escape and roam free within her city, only goodness and mercy will follow?"
Of the number of illegals in her city, how many are criminals? And how does that compare with the number of criminals in the general population? Shall I now complain about your fantasy?
Moose
Of the number she warned, 100%.
So, you're saying she warned individual criminals? That's a lie. Looks like a press release to me. That would mean she informed every single citizen of her city of actions that the federal government was going to take in her (their) city.
Moose
I think this is where I should say something about local control.
I doubt, in your hypocrisy, that you'd agree.
Moose
Moose,
Why are you letting Jerry bait you? He seems in a very cynical and foul mood lately. Kind of strange since the weather is so nice outside.
I understand that you seem to think letting illegals come here and take jobs from legal workers is okay. That is your position and we disagree..
I guess I'm unclear on how it's the fault of the "illegal" that a corporation is hiring them.
Moose
I have a better idea:
The mayor should have asked the State to organize the local militia to take up arms against the federal government's agents. I mean, that's the prevailing Republican/Conservative/NRA position on why the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place.
I'm sure the Republicans/Conservatives/NRA members would have supported her then.
Moose
Moose,
If a prostitute is hired by a customer... Are only one of them in the wrong?
Also, please remember that many illegal workers are self employed.
Why is it hard for you to admit that people who have entered or are staying in America against the law should go home until they can enter our country legally?
How many of the 3 Billion poor and down trodden of the world do you think we should bring into America each year?
We already know that automation is going to make life tough for our low skill workers... How do you envision us assisting all these others?
Moose, you miss the point, and my number was exactly correct-- 100% of those on the ICE list of criminal ordered to be detained and deported, and who were NOT found due to the mayor's warning, were indeed criminals that the mayor "aided and abetted" to escape capture. By California law, any crimes they have committed or will commit, she is now criminally liable for, just as much as they are.
Oh, and John, I'm not "baiting" Moose at all. I'm trying to get him to recognize reality.
The mayor did not warn them, specifically. She alerted her city to the actions of the Federal government in her city.
Remember, too much government is the problem. Government regulation is bad...so you say.
Moose
ICE came to town with a list of a few hundred specific individual criminals to arrest. The mayor warned them along with everybody else. Therefore, she "aided and abetted" every criminal that ICE did NOT find, a violation of both State and Federal law.
In this case, too little government is the problem, by allowing criminals to roam free rather than being incarcerated. Why do liberals have such trouble discriminating between things like innocent civilians and criminals, when "discrimination" is something they supposedly oppose?
There are fine people on both sides.
Moose
Of what? The border, certainly. The law? NO. On one side are all the good people and the law enforcement to protect them. On the other are the criminals and the people that protect the criminals, like this mayor.
She let her citizens know of federal activities in her city.
If you’re okay with the government coming and snooping in your neighborhood, have at it. These intelligent people are suspicious of the government...something you seem to have no trouble with when it come to white gun and land owners.
Moose
Jerry,
Moose has a great argument there...
You swear that the Feds should stay out of local matters...
And yet here you want the Feds to reach into the local communities and forcefully impose their will against that of the local residents.
That supports my placement of the GOP below the Nolan X axis...
"Local control is fine until the GOP disagrees with it. Then we send in the armed military to squash free will."
Moose has a great argument against what I've never said. Remember it was Obama that won the Supreme Court case declaring parts of Arizona's immigration enforcement law invalid, because immigration is a federal responsibility. There is not and can not be a "local law" here. California has decided it will not cooperate with federal authorities in immigration matters. That's one thing. But to actively oppose them by preventing apprehension of criminals, that's aiding and abetting, it's criminal, and the good mayor should be behind bars.
And you should be able to imagine a local law equivalent. Your no-good brother in law just robbed the local liquor store and assaulted the owner. He's two steps ahead of the local police and runs through your back door. You close and lock the door and tell the police to just wait a minute while you tell N.G. B-I-L to hightail it out the front. Oh, and you are the mayor. Should you go to jail?
And are you really going to object to the integration of Little Rock schools?
Or the children of Mississippi are not learning as well as the children in the rest of the country...
Should the Federal government be free to mandate improvements against the will of the local citizens who are happy keeping their unlucky children uneducated???
I am fine having the Feds enforce expectations with in states...
It is you who is usually against it.
"Should the federal government...." No. And that isn't what they were doing; they were enforcing the law against racial segregation. And "keeping their unlucky children uneducated" is STILL going on, despite desegregation and bussing and all that, and it has gotten worse. The big difference is that, thanks to Republicans and NCLB, we now measure it. Now, having the federal government "fix it" I object to. Having State government "fix it" would be ideal but it isn't happening. Is that the "will of the people" or is that the power of liberals and unions defending the miserable status quo?
Wonder how many "people" would send their kids to a "better school" if they could?
"Wonder how many "people" would send their kids to a "better school" if they could?"
Instead of trying to make all schools better? That's lame.
Moose
jerry-
Your NG BIL analogy doesn't work. The correct analogy would be if NG BIL showed up at your place, and you said, "The police are coming."
Is it your job to detain your NG BIL, even if you're the mayor?
Moose
Moose,
You should have stuck with local rights / control...
And yes it is the Mayor's job to try to detain a known felon...
No. I fixed an errant analogy.
Is it every citizen's job to detain a criminal? Did the citizens elect her to perform that duty?
Moose
The whole state of California has already decided that it is not law enforcement's job to detain criminals of a certain favored class. What the mayor did was to actively prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law. That is obstruction on the one side and aiding and abetting on the other; it is black letter law. You may insist otherwise if you like, And it appears as if the mayor may escape consequences for Her criminality, but That certainly does not excuse it.
"What the mayor did was to actively prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law. That is obstruction on the one side and aiding and abetting on the other; it is black letter law."
She informed, she did not actively prevent. They still performed their raids, so it's clear she didn't 'actively prevent' anything. It really amazing to me that you don't want people to be informed of federal activities in their neighborhood. Wonder what your endgame is, although it appears to be to allow the federal government in: your bedroom, doctor's office, and neighborhood.
Congratulations, you've succeeded in getting me to call for less government.
Moose
She actively prevented their making [All] their intended arrests. If I am harboring a known fugitive in the pool house and tell him to run because the police are coming, is that "informing" Or is that aiding a criminal to escape arrest? on this we can agree, that there should be less government in the form of the mayor losing her job.
So tell me, should ALL criminals be warned when they are about to be arrested, or when a search warrant is to be executed, or a crack house raided? how does that work, exactly, to increase public safety?
She told them to run? I must have missed that part of the memo.
Moose
I would say telling them to go on with "resiliency and awareness" is telling them to run and hide if they think they are wanted by ICE for any reason
I guess there are just some things that trigger the conspiracy theorist in everyone.
Moose
Moose,
Not sure why you are so resistant to the fact that they are
sanctuary cities: in North America) a city whose municipal laws tend to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation or prosecution, despite federal immigration law. ‘mayors in those cities reaffirmed their status as sanctuary cities’
I mean they seem proud of thumbing their nose at the enforcement of our Federal Laws.
And yet when their federal grants are threatened because of it, they sue, claiming some sort of unconditional entitlement. Earth to California....
It does get pretty strange since they likely pay more into the Federal government than the Federal government sends them back.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if California seceded from the USA...
Post a Comment