Trump's Order to End Family Separation Won't End Portland ICE Protest

Comments

1

Eating chicken wings is apparently as evil as locking up kids. Who wudda thunk it?

2

Personally speaking, I will vote this election for candidates who prioritize citizens over illegal aliens, those who oppose sanctuary cities, amnesty and taxpayer funded in state college tuition discounts for illegals. That means no Democrats and no RINO's.

When will politicians and people in general figure out that when you reward illegal immigration with jobs, amnesty, drivers licenses, discounts for college tuition, scholarships encourages MORE illegal entry.. Illegal immigration negativity effects our economy from employment to use public services. Just debating this in congress is costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars..... thank the parents. Another concern is the real "immigrants" who have waited in line? The "dreamers" don't care about them, but we as a country should.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

http://www.illegalaliencrimereport.com/

3

@2 - boring troll, recycled bumper sticker slogans, and tacit approval of jailing babies.

5

White girl vegan totally gets what 3rd world asylum seekers are going through?

At a minimum, give a thought as to how you present in a space. At a maximum, what a selfish, centering dope. You honestly made jailed babies of asylum seekers about you not eating animal products? Goddammit this is why people hate the political left and for once, they’re right.

6

Why do I suspect that Megan the Vegan, micheleryan and nullbull are all bots?

7

You are not talking to bots on the internet.

7

So, if "0" tolerance is just too dammed little tolerance, what's the number they're demanding? Would it be enough if we tolerated 10% of illegal aliens just making themselves at home without legal process? 30%? Or does it have to be 100%?

And, if, as demanded, the Trump Administration is free to choose not to enforce certain laws 100%, what in the hell makes you think he won't use that license elsewhere...

We're all good with a very tolerant approach to defending to defending paid leave laws? How about tax laws? (that should make a lot of potential contributors happy) What about hate crime legislation? Voting rights? Reproductive rights?

We all good with say a 50/50 enforcement on those laws, or an executive order that DOJ should just ignore them completely for the rest of his term???

I bet Trump would enjoy having this broad and sweeping discretion to choose which laws to enforce, and which to ignore. He might very well think it wise to start with laws concerning obstruction and collusion... 0 Tolerance does seems kinda harsh. Doesn't it?

And... That's why we must insist that The Executive Branch enforce ALL laws with "0 tolerance" AND insist that the Legislative Branch change laws that don't reflect our values.

8

@7, Dude. Zero tolerance is just the informal name of the policy that incudes separating children from their asylum-seeking parents as a deterrent. It was implemented in late April and stricken by executive order today. That’s it.

Our immigration laws need work but we’re not literally talking about what percentage of them to enforce. Trump just made a decision so awful that it drove a wedge through his own party and forced him to back down, which is remarkable considering we’re talking about a president who said nazis are fine people.

9

I saw some guys in a National Forest, at least two in the space of an hour, hiking with dogs off leash. That's a Class B Misdemeanor, fines upwards of $250. Nobody was there to enforce the law. How can the president CHOOSE to not station enough park rangers there on those trails to see all this happening? Those scofflaws are criminals.

We're pouring manpower into this project to catch every single immigrant who commits a Class B Misdemeanor by entering the country without authorization. Not letting a single one walk away with just a court date, no. Every one of those misdemeanor suspects is being held until trial.

Meanwhile, thousands of other misdemeanors are happing while Trump looks the other way. Dogs off leash. Removing catalytic converters from cars. Knowing disregard of a bankruptcy rule! That's ch 18 156. Where is the ZERO TOLERANCE? You know damn well Trump and his cronies have crossed a few of those lines when declaring a bankruptcy or ten.

Or 18 U.S.C. 46 - Transportation of water hyacinths. That's ALLIGATOR GRASS, motherfuckers, and it is a Federal misdemeanor to transport that shit across state lines. Yet here we are. Basically were at 100% tolerance of transportation of water hyacinth. Let that sink in, folks. One. Hundred. Percent. Tolerance.

The simple fact is that Trumpers have zero tolerance for this one particular federal misdemeanor because they are white supremacist racist shitbags who cream themselves at the thought of throwing the book at every brown person they can. They don't give a rusty fuck about how much tolerance you show for "the" law. There's a thousand laws they don't bother to enforce. It's all about the ones breaking the law being not white.

Going to be a reckoning for all this. You all going to get what's coming to you.

10

A couple of other Federal Midemanors that are equally as serious as 8 U.S. Code § 1325 - "Improper entry by alien":

18 U.S. Code § 711 - “Smokey Bear” character or name

Whoever, except as authorized under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture after consultation with the Association of State Foresters and the Advertising Council, knowingly and for profit manufactures, reproduces, or uses the character “Smokey Bear”, originated by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Association of State Foresters and the Advertising Council for use in public information concerning the prevention of forest fires, or any facsimile thereof, or the name “Smokey Bear” shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

18 U.S. Code § 711a - “Woodsy Owl” character, name, or slogan

Whoever, except as authorized under rules and regulations issued by the Secretary, knowingly and for profit manufactures, reproduces, or uses the character “Woodsy Owl”, the name “Woodsy Owl”, or the associated slogan, “Give a Hoot, Don’t Pollute” shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

I think for a first offense desecrating or whatever the name of Woodsy Owl can actually draw a harsher penalty than unauthorized border crossing. Can I say Woodsy Owl? I hope so. I just did.

11

I wonder about all the people who are currently waiting in line to become citizens legally view all these others cutting in line.

12

About the protest, but it was arranged, the bbq the busses,the flyers everything. Well, let's see who shows up.

14

@2:

I wish I had a time machine, so I could go back and throw your ancestors in a chain-link cage.

@11:

Why don't you ask them?

15

Someone waiting in line for citizenship who thinks holding children hostage is a good way to deter illegal border crossing is not morally fit to be a US citizen.

And all that ignores the parents who only sought asylum, which is not a crime, yet had their children taken. No excuse for that. Anybody who would condone such a thing is a garbage person.

16

@14, No, maybe you should. You might not get the same mantra your use to in your fenced garden.

18

@9 point taken but ixnay onyay ethay offleashyay ogsday! Don't give the man any more bad ideas :)

19

Regarding people waiting in line to become citizen, I can tell you a lot about that. Firsthand experience as I don't know of a poll that has gone around and asked everyone, but my family is full of naturalized citizens who went through the process and green card holders who are in the process of one day becoming citizens, and my extended family and friend group includes loads of work/student visa holders who are here legally- most of whom are not on a path to citizenship but some of them would like to be. So based on that, I'll give you a quick answer.

For the most part, people who have been through the process know more about it than born American citizens. As a result, they mostly wouldn't ask such a stupid question in the first place because they know that people who cross the border illegally have no path to citizenship. This is something most Americans don't understand. If you entered illegally- never had any documentation in the first place- then you are not in a line. You are not cutting in front of anyone because there is no process for you. There is no way to become legal if you entered without papers. I hear lots of Americans say stuff like "they should have just done it legally" but a) a lot of people cannot get legal visas and b) if you enter without papers, there is no way to normalize your status without first leaving the country and (almost always) being made to wait for years abroad before being permanently denied. If you came legally on some visa or another and then overstayed or fell out of status, there might be a path for you with appropriate legal aid, but it's not guaranteed. Now what all the immigrants I know think of this is that the American system is draconian and overly complicated and that it has been getting worse over the years.

Second, the change in the process (as none of the above nor the incarceration of some families is new, Obama was doing it) is that now people who do not enter illegally but rather who present themselves to border officials seeking asylum are treated as if they have illegally entered, and then by policy sent to prison to await hearings. And of course they added the separation of children, which was also happening sometimes before but not as a matter of policy to everyone. But even if they stop separating kids from parents, this new policy towards asylum seekers is not changing best I have heard. What do all the illegal immigrants I know think of that? Like most citizens I know, they think it's horrific.

20

Let me get this straight: we want sanctuary cities, we don't want ICE raids that often result in deportation. We don't want a wall. So if anybody can come into this country and not be deported, that means that we really don't want any borders, doesn't it? I think Democrats should just make this part of their platform if that's what they really believe. Let's just shut down U.S. consulates around the world who manage the immigration process for legal immigration. They won't be needed if we have no border.

21

@20, Borders serve more function than just determining who is/n't allowed to be inside them, but even beside that obvious caveat the rest of your argument is also garbage. For starters, sanctuary city policy doesn't mean what you think it means (local authorities won't report non-violent offenders to immigration so people feel safe reporting crime and other activities to authorities), and the wall is a terrible idea for reasons that have nothing to do with border security (we can manage our borders much more efficiently with technology than a multi-billion dollar wall that will cost even more to maintain, would disrupt wildlife, be damaged by earthquakes and other natural disasters, and would straddle a motherfucking river).

In short, you have been sold a lie about the dangers of illegal immigration and the steps needed to curtail it.

22

@20: The end goal for many is the eradication of borders, or at least for western or developed countries. But you really can't say that yet for the most part because it is still too radical an idea. But you do still hear some people say it even now.

The global rich want this because globalization makes it easier to monetize people and consolidate markets, and the minority hardline left wants it because it "punishes" western countries and western cultures, which they see as inherently destructive and without any value.

23

I think that, when you misstate something that “could or would benefit” as “is wanted” you are walking into the realm of Illuminati conspiracy theories and intelligent design.

But yes, the ~radicals~ want to die of dysentery.

24

@22:

National borders, even those delineated by geographical features such as bodies of water, are pretty arbitrary to begin with, not to mention being entirely fluid. Even the borders of our own country have changed numerous times since the founding of the nation way back in 1789. From 200 miles up you can't even see most of them. Hell, the entire concept of "national borders" isn't even that old, and didn't exist prior to the 1500's when most human beings were still living in small feudal societies governed by petty monarchs and land-lieges, and idea of what we consider the modern nation-state didn't really catch on in a big way until the mid-1600's in the aftermath of the 30 Years War. If you look most of the sovereign nations that exist today, based on their dates of formation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_date_of_formation), the overwhelming majority didn't exist prior to the 19th Century.

25

I love seeing conservatives tie themselves in a knot while defending big govt, freedom-limiting borders.

26

It's a mad, mad, mad world where conservatives must now defend extreme protectionism, even mercantilism. All the while religious conservatives must defend a serial womanizing adulterer, many-times divorced potty mouth. The guy who loves nothing more than a good "locker room" chat with Howard Stern. Howard Fucking Stern. How do you think they deal with that over at Bob Jones University?

Poor conservatives. This is what you get for abandoning all principle in pursuit of power. Enjoy, motherfuckers.

27

There is an ongoing occupation of the Tacoma ICE detention facility go here for more information on how to get involved or support: https://m.facebook.com/events/468466893606806?ref=bookmarks