Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So… there is likely to be a partial government shutdown and a stop on DHS funding because for the democrats to agree they have put out a list of “10 demands” before they will agree So here is the democratic DHS “guardrails” demands " 1) must have judicial warrants Why, specifically (not generally that arrests otherwise need these)? 2) wear no masks Fair, but if people are doxxing then this might be an argument. 3) must require visible ID Absolutely 4) no searches in sensitive locations (schools, hospitals, churches ect) ...unless there is a judicial warrant, perhaps? Or if this is being abused. 5) end racial profiling (overreach of kavanagh stops) Tough one: what do the facts say about (a) the prevalence of this, (b) the efficiency of this, (c) the issues arising from this?. Leaning strongly towards banning racial profiling. 6) have strict use of force standards Absolutely. Shouldn't even need to spell that out. 7) require outside investigation Meaning...? 8) add extra safeguards That's a woolly statement. But probably, yes. 9) agents must have body cameras Strongly agree. 10) demilitarise police Meaning, in a practical sense? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'No masks' ? So the well funded far left lynch mob can attack their homes and children." If they restore trust and respect for how they operate, which is a reasonable expectation, then there shouldn't be hesitation upon equality of openness with the public, similar to other public servants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'No masks' ? So the well funded far left lynch mob can attack their homes and children. If they restore trust and respect for how they operate, which is a reasonable expectation, then there shouldn't be hesitation upon equality of openness with the public, similar to other public servants " This… if they want the help of the local police for example, why should the local police not be masked and be verifiable.. but the ICE agents are! It could be argued that the ICE agents are being as brazen as they are because you can’t recognise them and they don’t have any ID | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'No masks' ? So the well funded far left lynch mob can attack their homes and children. If they restore trust and respect for how they operate, which is a reasonable expectation, then there shouldn't be hesitation upon equality of openness with the public, similar to other public servants " Unfortunately ICE agents are harassed, obstructed and attacked wherever and however they operate, by far left activists who oppose any deportations regardless of the law. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So here is the democratic DHS “guardrails” demands 1) must have judicial warrants 2) wear no masks 3) must require visible ID 4) no searches in sensitive locations (schools, hospitals, churches ect) 5) end racial profiling (overreach of kavanagh stops) 6) have strict use of force standards 7) require outside investigation 8) add extra safeguards 9) agents must have body cameras 10) demilitarise police So.. I know those against… merces, ray, tall (yes we know it’s you Pat! lol), will have issues But most of those are actually reasonable to me…." They all look reasonable at first glance, but ... 2. People have already commented about face masks and the risks to ICE agents. 4. Why no searches in sensitive places? What will ICE do if all their targets just start hiding in those places as soon as ICE arrive in an area? 6. Of course, but those standards will almost certainly authorise the use of deadly force if an agent's life is in danger. In the recent shootings, both of the agents involved genuinely (but wrongly) believed their lives were at risk. New standards won't help if the ICE training is still as poor as we can see that it is. 8. "Add extra safeguards" is a catch-all phrase that means 'stop doing whatever I disapprove of'. 10. Why are they demanding that the police be demilitarised because of the actions of ICE? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would have put this in the Minnesota State police thread.. but only 3 post left.. So… there is likely to be a partial government shutdown and a stop on DHS funding because for the democrats to agree they have put out a list of “10 demands” before they will agree So here is the democratic DHS “guardrails” demands 1) must have judicial warrants 2) wear no masks 3) must require visible ID 4) no searches in sensitive locations (schools, hospitals, churches ect) 5) end racial profiling (overreach of kavanagh stops) 6) have strict use of force standards 7) require outside investigation 8) add extra safeguards 9) agents must have body cameras 10) demilitarise police So.. I know those against… merces, ray, tall (yes we know it’s you Pat! lol), will have issues But most of those are actually reasonable to me…. " I'd agree with all of these. . In addition, I'd want to see the following. - Any law enforcement, ICE or otherwise, held to much higher standards in public office. (Kind of touches on number 7 to some degree). But with meaningful ability to remove a officer and they lose their pension automatically. . - A yearly test to retain their licence to uphold the law. Constant evaluation and ongoing training. . Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"1) must have judicial warrants 2) wear no masks 3) must require visible ID 4) no searches in sensitive locations (schools, hospitals, churches ect) 5) end racial profiling (overreach of kavanagh stops) 6) have strict use of force standards 7) require outside investigation 8) add extra safeguards 9) agents must have body cameras 10) demilitarise police" 1) Not needed: under current laws ICE already need to have one in order to enter private property without a) consent or b) exigent circumstances. 2) Why? We don't need to know who the officers are. We don't need their names, addresses and next-of-kin doxxed at the wishes of deranged, extreme, violent activists. Just like we don't demand that DEA units carrying out anti-drug operations show their faces, either. They can have a badge number on display which will link to an internal registry/database instead. 3) No problem. See 2). 4) No reason for this one. If you're not breaking any federal laws, you've got nothing to hide. Or they can just get a warrant. If you create "safe spaces" or "sanctuaries" that aren't beholden to compliance with police officers... you create breeding grounds for criminals to hide and operate from. I'd rather not endanger schools, hospitals, churches, etc in such a manner. 5) Not needed: DHS policy (which covers ICE) already prohibits racial or ethnic profiling... 6) They already do. As you yourself informed me, as federal officers, ICE already have even higher/stricter use of force standards compared to State/local law enforcement. 7) Agreed at face value, but too vague. By whom? Under what circumstances? They don't/aren't already? 8) Too vague. Need specifics with reasonings. 9) Agreed. 10) Too vague. Need to know what this actually means. "This… if they want the help of the local police for example, why should the local police not be masked and be verifiable.. but the ICE agents are!" Again, happy for local police to also wear masks if they want? Just have visible badge numbers and bodycams for all law enforcement... "It could be argued that the ICE agents are being as brazen as they are because you can’t recognise them and they don’t have any ID" Is that why DEA units or other specialised response units like SWAT wear them, too? It could be argued that ICE are already facing enough harrassment and threat that they don't need to have their names, addresses and next-of-kin doxxed to these violent lunatics. "They all look reasonable at first glance, but ... 2. People have already commented about face masks and the risks to ICE agents. 4. Why no searches in sensitive places? What will ICE do if all their targets just start hiding in those places as soon as ICE arrive in an area? 6. Of course, but those standards will almost certainly authorise the use of deadly force if an agent's life is in danger. In the recent shootings, both of the agents involved genuinely (but wrongly) believed their lives were at risk. New standards won't help if the ICE training is still as poor as we can see that it is. 8. "Add extra safeguards" is a catch-all phrase that means 'stop doing whatever I disapprove of'. 10. Why are they demanding that the police be demilitarised because of the actions of ICE?"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"but how will the fascists keep their secret police secret if they have to show their faces or have id numbers on show at all times? and how will they be able to continue to terrorise the population in the way that they are?" Question: did real, actual fascist secret police wear masks to hide their identities? Follow-up question once you’ve answered that one: why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"but how will the fascists keep their secret police secret if they have to show their faces or have id numbers on show at all times? and how will they be able to continue to terrorise the population in the way that they are? Question: did real, actual fascist secret police wear masks to hide their identities? Follow-up question once you’ve answered that one: why?" 🤭😉 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the fact is that real fascist secret police are currently wearing masks as they terrorise and execute minisotans on the streets of the twin cities" Execute (verb): carry out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person). "he was convicted of treason and executed" It's not just semantics. You're creating a whole false narrative. You probably mean well, exaggerating to draw attention to terrible things, but when language inflation grows out of control (terrorise, fascist, secret police) then it appears shill and ultimately meaningless. Or, if you really, really mean that ("the fact is"), then people should take up arms and "execute" those fascists. Is that what you mean? Because fascist terrorists who "execute" people need to be stopped by any means. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the fact is that real fascist secret police are currently wearing masks as they terrorise and execute minisotans on the streets of the twin cities Execute (verb): carry out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person). "he was convicted of treason and executed" It's not just semantics. You're creating a whole false narrative. You probably mean well, exaggerating to draw attention to terrible things, but when language inflation grows out of control (terrorise, fascist, secret police) then it appears shill and ultimately meaningless. Or, if you really, really mean that ("the fact is"), then people should take up arms and "execute" those fascists. Is that what you mean? Because fascist terrorists who "execute" people need to be stopped by any means." you're just projecting your words and thoughts there .... and they come across as very disturbed and disturbing indeed.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the fact is that real fascist secret police are currently wearing masks as they terrorise and execute minisotans on the streets of the twin cities" "Execute (verb): carry out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person). "he was convicted of treason and executed" It's not just semantics. You're creating a whole false narrative. You probably mean well, exaggerating to draw attention to terrible things, but when language inflation grows out of control (terrorise, fascist, secret police) then it appears shill and ultimately meaningless. Or, if you really, really mean that ("the fact is"), then people should take up arms and "execute" those fascists. Is that what you mean? Because fascist terrorists who "execute" people need to be stopped by any means." "you're just projecting your words and thoughts there .... and they come across as very disturbed and disturbing indeed." No, TM has got it right. Your use of excessive hyperbole makes your words meaningless. You don't really believe that ICE are a "secret police", nor do you really believe that people are being executed on the streets at the whim of ICE agents. This is why no one tries to engage you in sensible discussion, because it's obvious that you are using emotive words to get a rise out of others. If you were to try a little honesty now and then, people might listen to what you're saying. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the fact is that real fascist secret police are currently wearing masks as they terrorise and execute minisotans on the streets of the twin cities Execute (verb): carry out a sentence of death on (a legally condemned person). "he was convicted of treason and executed" It's not just semantics. You're creating a whole false narrative. You probably mean well, exaggerating to draw attention to terrible things, but when language inflation grows out of control (terrorise, fascist, secret police) then it appears shill and ultimately meaningless. Or, if you really, really mean that ("the fact is"), then people should take up arms and "execute" those fascists. Is that what you mean? Because fascist terrorists who "execute" people need to be stopped by any means. you're just projecting your words and thoughts there .... and they come across as very disturbed and disturbing indeed. "Therese is one of the most reasonable and intelligent posters on here and that comment says more about you than her ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the fact is that real fascist secret police are currently wearing masks as they terrorise and execute minisotans on the streets of the twin cities" Stop dodging and answer the question(s). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'No masks' ? So the well funded far left lynch mob can attack their homes and children. If they restore trust and respect for how they operate, which is a reasonable expectation, then there shouldn't be hesitation upon equality of openness with the public, similar to other public servants Unfortunately ICE agents are harassed, obstructed and attacked wherever and however they operate, by far left activists who oppose any deportations regardless of the law. " The onus ionly s on responsibility 3ICE to change this If they restore trust and respect for how they operate, which is a reasonable expectation, then there shouldn't be hesitation upon equality of openness with the public, similar to other public servants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"the fact is that real fascist secret police are currently wearing masks as they terrorise and execute minisotans on the streets of the twin cities ... you're just projecting your words and thoughts there .... and they come across as very disturbed and disturbing indeed. "You begin with the words "the fact is", and then you give anything but facts. You give hyperbole and conjecture. That's a fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"'No masks' ? So the well funded far left lynch mob can attack their homes and children. If they restore trust and respect for how they operate, which is a reasonable expectation, then there shouldn't be hesitation upon equality of openness with the public, similar to other public servants Unfortunately ICE agents are harassed, obstructed and attacked wherever and however they operate, by far left activists who oppose any deportations regardless of the law. The onus ionly s on responsibility 3ICE to change this If they restore trust and respect for how they operate, which is a reasonable expectation, then there shouldn't be hesitation upon equality of openness with the public, similar to other public servants " That's partly, or perhaps even mostly, true. ICE desperately and urgently need to recruit, train, operate and monitor better than they do. But they do suffer from political headwinds over which they have no control. To many people, including some nutcases and some organised cartel members, they will always be "fascists" and therefore targets. Anger (often justified) at "the establishment" in general, or Trump in particular, will often be misdirected to people doing their jobs. The issue now is that there is an ideological allergy to deporting anyone, legally and peacefully, or not (no one is illegal on st0len land?). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting thread. It’s not a topic I’ve really followed but in essence it seems the lefties want to make it harder and more dangerous for federal agents to enforce the law? Why? If someone is breaking into your home, tying one arm behind your back before you try to defend it doesn’t sound logical. But obviously they should try to do their job without causing physical harm. I have a list of proposals that the other side should perhaps be forced to agree to…. 1. Don’t enter the country illegally 2. If you have done so previously, go back to your country or origin under your own steam and at your own cost. 3. If you can’t afford to, hand yourself in peacefully and we will put you on the next bus to Mexico and they can handle it from there. What’s unreasonable about that? " Ever since the BLM hysteria there has been a strong movement on the American left to 'defund the police' (their words). Where this was actually implemented by Democrat run cities the murder rate increased massively, with mostly young black men losing their lives. To a large extent the activism against ICE is just an extension of this mad ideology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting thread. It’s not a topic I’ve really followed but in essence it seems the lefties want to make it harder and more dangerous for federal agents to enforce the law? Why? If someone is breaking into your home, tying one arm behind your back before you try to defend it doesn’t sound logical. But obviously they should try to do their job without causing physical harm. I have a list of proposals that the other side should perhaps be forced to agree to…. 1. Don’t enter the country illegally 2. If you have done so previously, go back to your country or origin under your own steam and at your own cost. 3. If you can’t afford to, hand yourself in peacefully and we will put you on the next bus to Mexico and they can handle it from there. What’s unreasonable about that? Ever since the BLM hysteria there has been a strong movement on the American left to 'defund the police' (their words). Where this was actually implemented by Democrat run cities the murder rate increased massively, with mostly young black men losing their lives. To a large extent the activism against ICE is just an extension of this mad ideology." Thank you for that. All the money put into the BLM movement was funnelled into two or three individuals personal bank accounts and none of it was spent on helping black people. They only spent money on trans activism. Fascinating documentary on Netflix about it all. Floyd’s sister I think it was, said he died of a drug overdose because he swallowed his stash to try and avoid jail. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Interesting thread. It’s not a topic I’ve really followed but in essence it seems the lefties want to make it harder and more dangerous for federal agents to enforce the law? Why? If someone is breaking into your home, tying one arm behind your back before you try to defend it doesn’t sound logical. " Ideology and injustice. On the Statue of Liberty: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free... [The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!]" The USA was originally sparsely populated by native Americans, then gradually colonised by predominantly Europeans. It used to pride itself on accepting those in need (and want) from everywhere (albeit with a side order of discrimination) from all around. As it became feasible (and desirable) to limit immigration, so that ideal changed. Current immigration laws favour white Europeans, or rich people. Why? Because the USA (like most countries) wants to bring in more productive people (seen as Western educated) and keep out criminals/scroungers. This is despite (especially undocumented) Hispanics being some of the hardest working and productive members of society, often with excellent family values. It is true that some cultures are disproportionately problematic (a problem that many on the left willfully ignore), just like in the UK. These highly visible issues cause many on the right to completely write-off that culture/nationality and fuels general discrimination. When added to latent racism, you end up with a narrative that all blacks are a step away from felony, all Hispanics belong to drug cartels, Somalians r@pe women and steal government funding and other groups will eat your pets. Rightly, many on the left point out that stereotyping based on this is unfair, certainly to many individuals, and to groups in general. Some further to the left will say "there's nothing to see here, and whites are worse anyway" (see discussion around grooming gangs in the UK). So some people on the right see an invasion of sex pests and criminals (helpfully colour-coded for easy reference) and some people on the left see a fascist mob with pitchforks and swastikas. When the happy and hardworking cleaner at someone's child's school, or the guy who gardens your home is carted away by masked men, along with (or sometimes without) their family, with very little legal recourse, then it's understandable that people get upset, whatever the law. That said, the law is the law and must be enforced, or it's meaningless - the way to change it is simple if people don't like it. And the reason for the limited due process is because you would otherwise end up with zero deportations due to lawfare and effective process abuse to make it untenable to ever fight it out in court on an individual basis (the UK is a good example of this). So good people who genuinely mean well are attempting to frustrate a legal process with which they disagree, mostly because they're nice guys. But law and order are sometimes not nice, on purpose. Because nice leads to abuse and the detriment of everyone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the US simply introduce more stringent right to work policies? They can't on one hand complain that there illegal immigrants working and at the same time turn a blind eye to how they are employed. " If all illegal immigrants in the USA disappeared overnight, the country would cease to function. It would eventually recover, and immigration policy might relax a little. The US policy is broadly okay, actually. It just needs better enforcement and efficiency. And they'll need to brace for more inflation, if so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Should the US simply introduce more stringent right to work policies? They can't on one hand complain that there illegal immigrants working and at the same time turn a blind eye to how they are employed. If all illegal immigrants in the USA disappeared overnight, the country would cease to function. It would eventually recover, and immigration policy might relax a little. The US policy is broadly okay, actually. It just needs better enforcement and efficiency. And they'll need to brace for more inflation, if so." If they want to crack down on illegal immigration the consequences need to be understood. Employers only need to consider documentation is correct, not prove it is correct. If that became enforceable at the employer level they would naturally see a reduction in illegal immigrants on the payroll. The consequences of that are as you say a spike in inflation, however that must be acceptable or the policy of removal is not the correct course of action. The true cost of low price goods and services isn't displayed on the ticket. What I get confused about is people supporting the use of low cost labour as a human right, as well as the people who suck up all the goods and services and then complain about the people supplying them. It just seems ridiculous when you think about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What I get confused about is people supporting the use of low cost labour as a human right, as well as the people who suck up all the goods and services and then complain about the people supplying them. It just seems ridiculous when you think about it. " Indeed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" What I get confused about is people supporting the use of low cost labour as a human right, as well as the people who suck up all the goods and services and then complain about the people supplying them. It just seems ridiculous when you think about it. Indeed." The whole situation is filled with hypocrisy on both sides. It’s the same in this country. Everyone wants cheap prices in the shops but want the stuff made here and the people making it to be paid £15+ per hour. You can’t have both, despite what some people seem to think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Latin American crime gangs and cartels are among the most violent and ruthless in the world. Look at how the President of El Salvador has slashed crime rates by treating them accordingly. Sending a traffic warden in a hi vis to ask them a few questions is not going to end well." Interesting that you say this yesterday Because CBS are reporting seeing DHS documents Of the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… Of the 14% … only 2% were actually accused of being gang members , another 2% were accused of homicide or SA offences.. The problem is that trump and the administration were only going after “after the worst of the worst” Problem is that ICE are going after people who are legally still going through the process… picking people up after immigration court dates, picking people up after green card hearings It the fact they are now picking up people to meet quotas that has now caused a lot of the issues | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Latin American crime gangs and cartels are among the most violent and ruthless in the world. Look at how the President of El Salvador has slashed crime rates by treating them accordingly. Sending a traffic warden in a hi vis to ask them a few questions is not going to end well. Interesting that you say this yesterday Because CBS are reporting seeing DHS documents Of the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… Of the 14% … only 2% were actually accused of being gang members , another 2% were accused of homicide or SA offences.. The problem is that trump and the administration were only going after “after the worst of the worst” Problem is that ICE are going after people who are legally still going through the process… picking people up after immigration court dates, picking people up after green card hearings It the fact they are now picking up people to meet quotas that has now caused a lot of the issues " So about 60k with violent criminal histories then ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Latin American crime gangs and cartels are among the most violent and ruthless in the world. Look at how the President of El Salvador has slashed crime rates by treating them accordingly. Sending a traffic warden in a hi vis to ask them a few questions is not going to end well. Interesting that you say this yesterday Because CBS are reporting seeing DHS documents Of the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… Of the 14% … only 2% were actually accused of being gang members , another 2% were accused of homicide or SA offences.. The problem is that trump and the administration were only going after “after the worst of the worst” Problem is that ICE are going after people who are legally still going through the process… picking people up after immigration court dates, picking people up after green card hearings It the fact they are now picking up people to meet quotas that has now caused a lot of the issues So about 60k with violent criminal histories then ! " If you want to look at it that way.. cool.. No one is disputing the 60k of violent criminals should be deported… And the other 340,000 people? … quota filling exercise? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And the other 340,000 people? … quota filling exercise?" Or, if we look at your earlier post: "...accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country…" You've kinda answered your own question, no? If you're not a criminal (violent or otherwise), you can go through the proper channels and enter the US the legal way. If you choose to enter the US illegally - whether you're already a criminal or not (violent or otherwise), then you become a criminal the moment you enter the US... therefore it becomes DHS/ICE's job to arrest and deport you. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"TOf the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country…" So 60% of those arrested, or 240,000 people, had a criminal record, but you think they shouldn't have been targeted because they weren't violent? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"TOf the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… So 60% of those arrested, or 240,000 people, had a criminal record, but you think they shouldn't have been targeted because they weren't violent?" If they are minor then no! Let’s take some examples that we have seen Driving tickets…. Bouncing checks…. Jaywalking (I kid you not)… D*unk in public….. Driving with a taillight not working…. Should those be used as excuses for deportation? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And the other 340,000 people? … quota filling exercise? Or, if we look at your earlier post: ...accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… You've kinda answered your own question, no? If you're not a criminal (violent or otherwise), you can go through the proper channels and enter the US the legal way. If you choose to enter the US illegally - whether you're already a criminal or not (violent or otherwise), then you become a criminal the moment you enter the US... therefore it becomes DHS/ICE's job to arrest and deport you. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me..." Okay… so let me give you an example that you may not know about but is actually newsworthy in Ireland at the moment There is a case where an Irishman has been living in the states for 20 years, … yes he originally overstayed his visa! So he met an American woman and got married… has 2 kids …. he has no criminal record and actually been an upstanding citizen, has a job, pays taxes, who has made a life for himself He was actually currently in the process of going through the system to get a visa properly, he has had 2 green card interviews so far…. After his 3rd interview for the green card, ICE agents were waiting for him literally outside the government centre They took him away… flew him to a detention centre and is currently awaiting deportation Now.. he is going through the system properly Should he be deported? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"TOf the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country…" "So 60% of those arrested, or 240,000 people, had a criminal record, but you think they shouldn't have been targeted because they weren't violent?" "If they are minor then no! Let’s take some examples that we have seen Driving tickets…. Bouncing checks…. Jaywalking (I kid you not)… D*unk in public….. Driving with a taillight not working…. Should those be used as excuses for deportation?" Bouncing cheques is fraud, and should definitely get you sent home. As for the rest of them - are you really saying that in the US you get a criminal record for jaywalking, but overstaying your visa isn't a criminal offence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If they are minor then no! Let’s take some examples that we have seen Driving tickets…. Bouncing checks…. Jaywalking (I kid you not)… D*unk in public….. Driving with a taillight not working…. Should those be used as excuses for deportation?" There are no excuses for deportation because deportation needs just one reason and one reason only: are you in the US legally or not? That's it. Doesn't matter if you have prior criminal offenses; minor, major, recent, none at all... are you here legally? Yes? Fine. No? Okay, off you pop. It's really not that complicated. "There is a case where an Irishman has been living in the states for 20 years, … yes he originally overstayed his visa! So he met an American woman and got married… has 2 kids …. he has no criminal record and actually been an upstanding citizen, has a job, pays taxes, who has made a life for himself He was actually currently in the process of going through the system to get a visa properly, he has had 2 green card interviews so far…. After his 3rd interview for the green card, ICE agents were waiting for him literally outside the government centre They took him away… flew him to a detention centre and is currently awaiting deportation Now.. he is going through the system properly Should he be deported?" If he overstayed his original visa then he ISN'T going through the system properly, then, is he? If you live in the US as a foreign national under a visa, you are in contract with the US government. If you break that contract you are in violation of their immigration laws... like, what part are you not understanding? I get it, he's not some crazy violent criminal sneaking in over the fence or lying/abusing asylum and then going around scamming, defrauding and/or committing violent crimes, but if he wanted to stay in the US then he should have made sure to renew his visa in time. Those are the rules/laws of the land, if you don't like/agree with them, I suggest you don't move there. If US citizens don't like/agree with them, then vote against them/to change them through official government channels. "The reason why I give that story is that actually crossing the border in itself is not illegal if you are going to claim asylum 99% of people who cross the border do claim asylum.. whether that is via something like the TPS scheme or other similar programs" Yes, because I'm suuuure that isn't open to, and actively being, abused at alllll...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And the other 340,000 people? … quota filling exercise? Or, if we look at your earlier post: ...accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… You've kinda answered your own question, no? If you're not a criminal (violent or otherwise), you can go through the proper channels and enter the US the legal way. If you choose to enter the US illegally - whether you're already a criminal or not (violent or otherwise), then you become a criminal the moment you enter the US... therefore it becomes DHS/ICE's job to arrest and deport you. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me... Okay… so let me give you an example that you may not know about but is actually newsworthy in Ireland at the moment There is a case where an Irishman has been living in the states for 20 years, … yes he originally overstayed his visa! So he met an American woman and got married… has 2 kids …. he has no criminal record and actually been an upstanding citizen, has a job, pays taxes, who has made a life for himself He was actually currently in the process of going through the system to get a visa properly, he has had 2 green card interviews so far…. After his 3rd interview for the green card, ICE agents were waiting for him literally outside the government centre They took him away… flew him to a detention centre and is currently awaiting deportation Now.. he is going through the system properly Should he be deported? " My point in a post above here, the right to work should be more stringent in the US. If a person who shouldn't be in the country can open a bank account, be paid a legitimate wage and pay taxes, something needs fixing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Interesting that you say this yesterday Because CBS are reporting seeing DHS documents Of the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… Of the 14% … only 2% were actually accused of being gang members , another 2% were accused of homicide or SA offences.. " This post didn't quite land as intended. Probably because most people in the UK just assume ICE is going after illegal immigrants, regardless of criminal status. So instead of playing down Trump's claim that these are all criminals (to which Brits aren't really exposed particularly much), Brits are like "wow, that many are violent/criminals?!"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Interesting that you say this yesterday Because CBS are reporting seeing DHS documents Of the 400,000 people arrested in Trump year 1… less than 14% had violent criminal records Nearly 40% of all those arrested by ICE in Trump 1st year back in office did not have any criminal record at all, and were only accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… Of the 14% … only 2% were actually accused of being gang members , another 2% were accused of homicide or SA offences.. This post didn't quite land as intended. Probably because most people in the UK just assume ICE is going after illegal immigrants, regardless of criminal status. So instead of playing down Trump's claim that these are all criminals (to which Brits aren't really exposed particularly much), Brits are like "wow, that many are violent/criminals?!" "'Civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country' - in other words people who entered and stayed in the country illegally, in other words criminals who opinion polls show most people want deported. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" 'Civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country' - in other words people who entered and stayed in the country illegally, in other words criminals who opinion polls show most people want deported." So criminal can mean anything from a loveable scamp who didn't declare being cautioned for getting high at a rave twenty years ago when filling out a visa application, to a murderous cartel pimp and violent human trafficker. The narrative of the Trump administration is more to the latter. Opinion polls certainly show that people want robust border control, but there is a spectrum of sympathy for well-integrated and productive people. You see a similar dichotomy when discussing abortion in the US - the right bangs on about partial birth/late term abortion, and the left bangs on about r@pe victims with serious and deadly pregnancy complications. Most regular folks are somewhere in between, although it's getting more polarised. The US needs to legislate as they mean to enforce, because a high tolerance for exceptions just leads to the process breaking down, which is exactly what happened there, and is happening daily over here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The US needs to legislate as they mean to enforce*, because a high tolerance for exceptions just leads to the process breaking down, which is exactly what happened there, and is happening daily over here." *As opposed to enforcing what they legislate, then cause confusion and horror, as people say, "Gee, we didn't think the government would actually enforce those laws!" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And the other 340,000 people? … quota filling exercise? Or, if we look at your earlier post: ...accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… You've kinda answered your own question, no? If you're not a criminal (violent or otherwise), you can go through the proper channels and enter the US the legal way. If you choose to enter the US illegally - whether you're already a criminal or not (violent or otherwise), then you become a criminal the moment you enter the US... therefore it becomes DHS/ICE's job to arrest and deport you. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me... Okay… so let me give you an example that you may not know about but is actually newsworthy in Ireland at the moment There is a case where an Irishman has been living in the states for 20 years, … yes he originally overstayed his visa! So he met an American woman and got married… has 2 kids …. he has no criminal record and actually been an upstanding citizen, has a job, pays taxes, who has made a life for himself He was actually currently in the process of going through the system to get a visa properly, he has had 2 green card interviews so far…. After his 3rd interview for the green card, ICE agents were waiting for him literally outside the government centre They took him away… flew him to a detention centre and is currently awaiting deportation Now.. he is going through the system properly Should he be deported? " if he is in the country illegally then yea he should be sent back to Ireland,he has been there years why didn't he ho legal years ago when he first got married | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And the other 340,000 people? … quota filling exercise? Or, if we look at your earlier post: ...accused of civil immigration offences, such as living in the us illegally or overstaying their permission to be in the country… You've kinda answered your own question, no? If you're not a criminal (violent or otherwise), you can go through the proper channels and enter the US the legal way. If you choose to enter the US illegally - whether you're already a criminal or not (violent or otherwise), then you become a criminal the moment you enter the US... therefore it becomes DHS/ICE's job to arrest and deport you. It seems pretty self-explanatory to me... Okay… so let me give you an example that you may not know about but is actually newsworthy in Ireland at the moment There is a case where an Irishman has been living in the states for 20 years, … yes he originally overstayed his visa! So he met an American woman and got married… has 2 kids …. he has no criminal record and actually been an upstanding citizen, has a job, pays taxes, who has made a life for himself He was actually currently in the process of going through the system to get a visa properly, he has had 2 green card interviews so far…. After his 3rd interview for the green card, ICE agents were waiting for him literally outside the government centre They took him away… flew him to a detention centre and is currently awaiting deportation Now.. he is going through the system properly Should he be deported? if he is in the country illegally then yea he should be sent back to Ireland,he has been there years why didn't he ho legal years ago when he first got married" These sob stories usually fall apart when you look at the details. Why didn't he go back to Ireland with his wife and apply for a Green Card ? Irish citizens mostly looked on favourably for US residence, especially with US wife. Probably had something to hide like criminal convictions back home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" These sob stories usually fall apart when you look at the details. Why didn't he go back to Ireland with his wife and apply for a Green Card ? Irish citizens mostly looked on favourably for US residence, especially with US wife. Probably had something to hide like criminal convictions back home." Pat… oh Pat… smearing people yet again No convictions… they do checks on criminal records in all countries a person has lived in as part of the green card process The fact he has a US wife and kids is the reason he decided to go through the legal process… he was in the middle of going through the legal process! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" These sob stories usually fall apart when you look at the details. Why didn't he go back to Ireland with his wife and apply for a Green Card ? Irish citizens mostly looked on favourably for US residence, especially with US wife. Probably had something to hide like criminal convictions back home. Pat… oh Pat… smearing people yet again No convictions… they do checks on criminal records in all countries a person has lived in as part of the green card process The fact he has a US wife and kids is the reason he decided to go through the legal process… he was in the middle of going through the legal process! " That's a charitable take. A cynical take would say that, despite knowingly violating immigration law, he waited until he felt he had a solid case to bypass the rules by claiming on the basis of family (wife/children). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" These sob stories usually fall apart when you look at the details. Why didn't he go back to Ireland with his wife and apply for a Green Card ? Irish citizens mostly looked on favourably for US residence, especially with US wife. Probably had something to hide like criminal convictions back home. Pat… oh Pat… smearing people yet again No convictions… they do checks on criminal records in all countries a person has lived in as part of the green card process The fact he has a US wife and kids is the reason he decided to go through the legal process… he was in the middle of going through the legal process! " Many criminal convictions are wiped from the records after certain time so what would show 20 years ago may not show now. He had 20 years to apply for Green Card but didn't do so despite being one of the most favoured nationalities. Clearly you are only providing a partial story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" These sob stories usually fall apart when you look at the details. Why didn't he go back to Ireland with his wife and apply for a Green Card ? Irish citizens mostly looked on favourably for US residence, especially with US wife. Probably had something to hide like criminal convictions back home. Pat… oh Pat… smearing people yet again No convictions… they do checks on criminal records in all countries a person has lived in as part of the green card process The fact he has a US wife and kids is the reason he decided to go through the legal process… he was in the middle of going through the legal process! " How about that...Guardian reporting he was issued with an arrest warrant for drug dealing after he fled to US on a visa and never returned. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/12/seamus-culleton-ice-detention-ireland-drug-charges Over to you OP ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" These sob stories usually fall apart when you look at the details. Why didn't he go back to Ireland with his wife and apply for a Green Card ? Irish citizens mostly looked on favourably for US residence, especially with US wife. Probably had something to hide like criminal convictions back home. Pat… oh Pat… smearing people yet again No convictions… they do checks on criminal records in all countries a person has lived in as part of the green card process The fact he has a US wife and kids is the reason he decided to go through the legal process… he was in the middle of going through the legal process! How about that...Guardian reporting he was issued with an arrest warrant for drug dealing after he fled to US on a visa and never returned. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/12/seamus-culleton-ice-detention-ireland-drug-charges Over to you OP ! "He also abandoned two daughters in Ireland who he never supported. The great thing about Social Media OP is that the truth can't be hidden any more. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
