Immigration question for the Progressives

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 1:29 pm

The Outsider wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:
I don't think anyone can logically argue they should be.

To say LEOs aren't in the top 10 of most dangerous jobs is subjective as to what qualifies as dangerous. Sure there are 12 jobs that have more deaths per capita, but as a whole LEOs meet encounter more hostile situations than any job in America. More so than the military.


At the end of the day it's up to the authority figures killing innocents to figure out why and fix it. That should be common sense.


If it were that easy it would be fixed by now. That should be common sense.

The line between who is innocent and guilty is blurred. Many, if not most, of these people are "guilty", but does their crime deserve death? For many it certainly isn't, but as I stated before we are having extreme amounts of turnover and demand for a position that is disrespected and extremely dangerous with relative low compensation rates. You also have an increased scrutiny and disobedience towards police in general. If the solution falls solely on LEOs, it's not going away. The onus is on all of us from the top down, equally.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:49 pm

Seems like reform would be easy with '09 Chuck Schumer.

Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:03 pm

We don’t disagree all that often, but in this case it seems we do.


uscbucsfan wrote:
The line between who is innocent and guilty is blurred.


I’m not 100% sure I understand this. What is blurry? Can you give me an example? Are you referring to the laws the criminals may be breaking as blurry? Or when the use of force is justified as being blurry?


uscbucsfan wrote:Many, if not most, of these people are "guilty", but does their crime deserve death? For many it certainly isn't



Unless the police officer is in danger of imminent death or someone in the general public he is serving is in danger of imminent death, a police officer should not be shooting anyone. It’s the most absolute power a state can make.

Now we can all argue the semantics of imminent danger ... and we can all think of exceptions to any codified rule of imment danger...but I very much am on the side of caution in all my definitions and rationale.

While we don’t get to read about the thousands of times officers drew their guns correctly, the stories we hear about shootings that aren’t justified are far too prevalant.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 216 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby uscbucsfan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 5:30 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:We don’t disagree all that often, but in this case it seems we do.


uscbucsfan wrote:
The line between who is innocent and guilty is blurred.


I’m not 100% sure I understand this. What is blurry? Can you give me an example? Are you referring to the laws the criminals may be breaking as blurry? Or when the use of force is justified as being blurry?


uscbucsfan wrote:Many, if not most, of these people are "guilty", but does their crime deserve death? For many it certainly isn't



Unless the police officer is in danger of imminent death or someone in the general public he is serving is in danger of imminent death, a police officer should not be shooting anyone. It’s the most absolute power a state can make.

Now we can all argue the semantics of imminent danger ... and we can all think of exceptions to any codified rule of imment danger...but I very much am on the side of caution in all my definitions and rationale.

While we don’t get to read about the thousands of times officers drew their guns correctly, the stories we hear about shootings that aren’t justified are far too prevalant.


It's blurry as to the action created the deadly or excessive force is still illegal. People are saying "innocents", but they are still mostly committing crimes and then resisting/disobeying LEOs.

I'm not saying it's not an issue, but you are still more likely to be struck by lightning than to be killed by a police officer. You are pointing to the most extreme and rare cases and saying, "They should err on the side of caution". This is super easy to do after the fact in your living room. This is why Graham v. Connor established objective reasonableness, to eliminate Monday Morning QB. It's impossible to look at a case after the fact and asses how in danger the officer's life was. This is why officer almost always get off, not due to the blue wall, but because there is literally a Supreme Court case that protects them.

The cases are rising and I stated my opinion why. Additional training is not a legitimate answer to resolve this. There needs to be a higher scrutiny of candidates and to do that there needs to be better pay/benefits. After that this still will take place, because no amount of training in the world can recreate these situations. No one knows how they will react until they are in the middle of it. We have a higher rate of it, we also have more guns in the population, a bigger resistance to police/authority. It's a vicious cycle. Things need to change on all levels.
Image
User avatar
uscbucsfan
 
Posts: 3725
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:21 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:09 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
uscbucsfan wrote:I guess the point that you are missing is they don't consider it to be additional government intervention for anyone who is currently a citizen. I had a more general statement, but there are those who absolutely see national ID as another step to Orwellian database.

This is what a lot of conservatives (none of whom are here, I'm sure) when they say they want small government. What they mean is that they want small government for THEM. They'll weild that government power all over everyone else, so long as it lets them do whatever they want.

This is how we can lead the G8 in police shootings per 100 people by far and nobody cries about fascism.

This is how we can have a for profit prison system that incarcerates people for YEARS for crimes with no victims and nobody cares.

This is how we can be at war for over 15 years and nobody gives it a second thought unless theres a mass casualty event.

Small government aint so small to some people.


I’m late but damn well said.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby PrimeMinister » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:21 pm

uscbucsfan wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:

I don’t remember exactly what qualified as violence against police in the article.

I absolutely agree that the respect for police is incredibly low at the moment. And that their jobs are harder then ever


Right, and the Police trust in the public is at an all time low, too. It creates these terrible violent situations, but I don't believe it to be systematic as far as implemented from the top down to be quicker to use violence. I think it's systematic as far as Police all over are running into more issues/escalation/violence than ever before. As I spoke in the Police violence thread, many of these men/women aren't cut out for those situations and they are being tested at an all-time rate, equating to an increased amount of police shootings.

Everyone asks for more training, but we need better candidates. That only comes with better pay. Units are so starved for officers they are waiving prior drug use, past issues, etc. It creates a bad product, but the excessive violence in the communities and attrition of the force is creating a massive demand.


Well said, USC.

I’d add in that the public’s trust level has fallen, but not specifically in the police. The public no longer trusts that those “bad eggs” (officers who abuse their power and sometimes commit murder) will be brought to justice. If the public knew that Officer Bad Egg would answer for making a kid beg for his life before murdering him we would t have this issue.

The police have brought this on themselves through the “blue wall of silence”. Not all officers hold to the police version of “stop snitching” but many appear to. Every time an officer gets away with abuse the public trusts all officers less.
PrimeMinister
 
Posts: 7118
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:34 am
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 186 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby NYBF » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:59 am

This could be an Onion story. But here we are...

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/01/get-co ... illegally/
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4980
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Buc2 » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:35 am

Image
Let it sink in.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9357
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby beardmcdoug » Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:52 am

Buc2 wrote:Image
Let it sink in.


lol the memes write themselves these days
User avatar
beardmcdoug
 
Posts: 2375
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2016 12:30 pm
Has thanked: 263 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Brazen331 » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:00 am

Buc2 wrote:Image
Let it sink in.


This could very well be the Democrat standard-bearer in 2020.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby HamBone » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:19 am

Buc2 wrote:Image
Let it sink in.



Only the government should have firearms?
User avatar
HamBone
 
Posts: 2031
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:34 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 64 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Buc2 » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:20 am

beardmcdoug wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Image
Let it sink in.


lol the memes write themselves these days

This is a pic of a tweet, but, yeah. They do write themselves sometimes.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9357
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby mdb1958 » Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:55 pm

Whats scary is she prolly had 100,000 likes in about three hours...
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby SDBucs » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:20 pm

A very novel concept is the idea (and reality) that increasing the labor supply/population decreases buying power, lowers competitive wages, and drives up the price of goods and services. Lets start with that. That right there is enough for me to say cut it (immigration of both kinds) out, but that won't happen.

Next we look at where this increased labor supply/population is going. A great proportion of it is low-skilled labor. Some of this goes to people paying below minimum wage (agriculture mostly) and keeps the wages low enough to keep domestic citizens out. This right here is the primary "they're taking our jobs". Democrats like to say Americans are too lazy anyway. Nah, maybe entitled liberals are but no sane American will be competitive with a company or service that's paying below minimum wage. Nor can an American hold a torch against an illegal run gardening company being paid cash by rich liberals. Most of them seem to fit in nicely though working honest jobs. This is good.

Now, lets tie it back to the first point though that immigration decreases buying power, lowers competitive wages, and drives up the price of goods and services. Fact.

Who is benefiting here? GDP gets increased, good. That's the economic argument made by Dems. Who reaps the benefits of that in this scenario? The middle class family who is now paying even higher prices on groceries, rent etc.? No. The hispanics or whatever immigrants? Well they're better than before but not well off by any means, still poor. So there's all this money, argument, lobbying, etc. around immigration... but the populace isn't made any better off and the immigrants are kinda in a crappy spot too. The general populace likes to act like the kind of money that goes into immigration debate is about human rights. HA. Money given expects money returned in politics.

What about the corporations? Do they benefit strongly from immigration? The ones now loaded with a cheap labor force? The ones with a bigger populace buying their products? Likely.

So corporations are the first to win. Why does govt allow this? Well, lobbying exists. And, well, this ever increasing poor population creates a demand for goods and services they can't really afford anymore. So who comes to save the day? Government. You now have a poor populace beholden to corporations and the government while the wealthy get to pat themselves on the back for allowing immigration.

It's pretty easy to see the more you look at it. Lobbying bastardized capitalism and allowed corporations to take over. Corporations and government work hand in hand to consolidate power. Mass immigration is a tool of theirs to keep it like this. It's so obvious.

The real question you should be asking liberals is: why after seeing centuries on centuries of consolidated power leading to mass human killing and suffering do you push for exactly that in every policy you push for? How did the US government convince a sizable portion of it's populace that giving it more power leads to good?
SDBucs
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:30 pm
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 24 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:27 pm

That is the greatest argument for a guest worker/path to citizenship program than I could ever make.

Congratulations, SD. You'll make a fine progressive once we get your head completely out of your ass.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11145
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 564 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby mdb1958 » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:38 pm

I think MB is eyeballing Lieutenant General of the new Authoritarian Party!
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:41 pm

mdb1958 wrote:I think MB is eyeballing Lieutenant General of the new Authoritarian Party!

FREE WEED!
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11145
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 564 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:54 pm

mdb1958 wrote:I think MB is eyeballing Lieutenant General of the new Authoritarian Party!


It's called the leftist wing of the Democratic Party.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:15 pm

DreadNaught wrote:
mdb1958 wrote:I think MB is eyeballing Lieutenant General of the new Authoritarian Party!


It's called the leftist wing of the Democratic Party.

You aint seen nothing yet.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 11145
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 564 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Brazen331 » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:50 am

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
DreadNaught wrote:
It's called the leftist wing of the Democratic Party.

You aint seen nothing yet.


I think changing your handle to MOUNTANTIFA BUC would be a good start.
Brazen331
 
Posts: 2561
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 3:25 am
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:16 am

OK, so what do folks think about what the Oakland mayor is doing warning people that ICE might be headed their way?

I have always empathized (though not agreed) with some on the left who oppose local law enforcement carrying out immigration duties...but this seems to go way beyond that.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 216 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Buc2 » Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:05 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:OK, so what do folks think about what the Oakland mayor is doing warning people that ICE might be headed their way?

I have always empathized (though not agreed) with some on the left who oppose local law enforcement carrying out immigration duties...but this seems to go way beyond that.

He/she should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 9357
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 792 times
Been thanked: 301 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:53 pm

I pretty much agree. If states and cities say they don’t have the resources to help the federal government I can back that claim

When they go out of their way to help criminals escape law enforcement it’s a whole other issue.



For anyone that is sympathetic to the Oakland Mayors plight, I hope you are equally as sympathetic when it happens that another political hack helps people and/or companies bypass laws you support
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 216 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby mdb1958 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:17 am

Does anyone think the conservative liars are outnumbered by a huge margin?

Serious question.
mdb1958
 
Posts: 8646
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:11 pm
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby NYBF » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:36 am

Zarniwoop wrote:OK, so what do folks think about what the Oakland mayor is doing warning people that ICE might be headed their way?

I have always empathized (though not agreed) with some on the left who oppose local law enforcement carrying out immigration duties...but this seems to go way beyond that.


Where is ICE heading? To take down some gang members with warrants and priors? The warning is not OK.

Standing outside a church asking everyone for papers? Going door to door asking for papers? Then good for him.
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 4980
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 177 times
Been thanked: 410 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:46 am

NYBF wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:OK, so what do folks think about what the Oakland mayor is doing warning people that ICE might be headed their way?

I have always empathized (though not agreed) with some on the left who oppose local law enforcement carrying out immigration duties...but this seems to go way beyond that.


Where is ICE heading? To take down some gang members with warrants and priors? The warning is not OK.

Standing outside a church asking everyone for papers? Going door to door asking for papers? Then good for him.

Yeah, but the hard working, tax paying people that don't even so much as drive over the speed limit are much softer targets. It's a lot easier to gather up that particular group of "criminals". It's even easier when we hold up their citizenship application process so long that they overstay their visas. That way, when they come in to their scheduled appointment, we can just arrest them there. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:53 am

NYBF wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:OK, so what do folks think about what the Oakland mayor is doing warning people that ICE might be headed their way?

I have always empathized (though not agreed) with some on the left who oppose local law enforcement carrying out immigration duties...but this seems to go way beyond that.


Where is ICE heading? To take down some gang members with warrants and priors? The warning is not OK.

Standing outside a church asking everyone for papers? Going door to door asking for papers? Then good for him that person.


I agree for the most part. But this guy person is the Mayor and I have an issue when elected officials start picking and choosing what laws are permissible.
Last edited by DreadNaught on Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:12 am

Look at all you misogynists assuming the mayor must be a man
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 216 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:17 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Look at all you misogynists assuming the mayor must be a man


Damn it!!
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 11193
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 454 times
Been thanked: 474 times

Re: Immigration question for the Progressives

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:18 am

Lol


FWIW, getting to NYBFs point, the mayor has openly admitted she has no idea to ICEs plan ... including who they are going to target and why
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 4234
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 216 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdb1958 and 6 guests