If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   DHS, "We selectively enforce our immigration laws. Wait, uh, I mean effectively and sensibly"   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 39
    More: Obvious, DHS, immigration laws, Jeh Johnson, Rio Grande Valley, McAllen, U.S. Representative  
•       •       •

619 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jan 2014 at 10:29 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



39 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-22 09:43:26 AM
If a cop ignores jay walkers during a homicide investigation, isn't he selectively enforcing the laws.
 
2014-01-22 10:34:42 AM
Don't almost all law enforcement agencies practice a degree of selective enforcement?  The question is whether that selection is valid (i.e. based on context or budget constraints) or not acceptable (i.e. an intentional effort to persecute a racial group).
 
2014-01-22 10:43:54 AM
OK, fine, subby.  Propose to me how you're going to fund the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment to build the Great Wall of Texas and round up that last illegal immigrant.

Difficulty:  the usual figure of 11 million illegal immigrants is about the number of people, Jew and Gentile, who died in the Holocaust.[1]  Now consider the trouble and expense that Nazi Germany had to incur to pull that off.  It might well have cost them the war.

So fund the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment to that level.  And STFU when the tax man cometh.

[1]Yeah, I went there.  If the jackboot fits, wear it.
 
2014-01-22 10:44:39 AM

mrshowrules: If a cop ignores jay walkers during a homicide investigation, isn't he selectively enforcing the laws.


It seems like that action is common sense, but you can't say it's not selective enforcement.
 
2014-01-22 10:45:14 AM
So they're advising deporting EVERYBODY?  That's fiscal conservatism for you.
 
2014-01-22 10:45:56 AM
Yes, this is true.

It's called "sensible allocation of limited funding, manpower and resources", and anyone who has a problem with this is either f*cking retarded, or a hardcore Republican.

If you want DHS to go after some 15 year old "illegal" high school student with no criminal record who's been here since he was 3 just as hard as they go after a recent "illegal" who was already deported twice and is a violent felon, you've got bigger problems.
 
2014-01-22 10:46:59 AM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: OK, fine, subby.  Propose to me how you're going to fund the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment to build the Great Wall of Texas and round up that last illegal immigrant.

Difficulty:  the usual figure of 11 million illegal immigrants is about the number of people, Jew and Gentile, who died in the Holocaust.[1]  Now consider the trouble and expense that Nazi Germany had to incur to pull that off.  It might well have cost them the war.

So fund the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment to that level.  And STFU when the tax man cometh.

[1]Yeah, I went there.  If the jackboot fits, wear it.


You said "Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment" twice.
 
2014-01-22 10:50:55 AM
I'll remember this the next time the Weekly Standard complains about mindless bureaucracies.
 
2014-01-22 10:57:32 AM
Selective enforcement of laws is tyranny.
It is better to remove laws you don't have the stomach to enforce than to leave it on the books and just use it against people you don't like.
 
2014-01-22 11:00:15 AM

HMS_Blinkin: Don't almost all law enforcement agencies practice a degree of selective enforcement?  The question is whether that selection is valid (i.e. based on context or budget constraints) or not acceptable (i.e. an intentional effort to persecute a racial group).


Yes they do. The state's police powers include a significant amount of discretion in terms of enforcement/prosecution, if you are a decision maker (lawyers, official, elected member of the executive branch, etc), and a lesser amount of discretion if you are rank and file (cop, junior prosecutor, meter maid, etc). That is why a cop can give a warning when people get caught speeding, or why a prosecutor drops a case when the evidence is insufficient or not credible enough. That said, the law sometimes prevents them from exercising their discretion (E.g. domestic violence cases.)

This is a good thing. Checks and balances.
 
2014-01-22 11:08:53 AM

El Morro: It's called "sensible allocation of limited funding, manpower and resources", and anyone who has a problem with this is either f*cking retarded, or a hardcore Republican.


upload.wikimedia.org

Well, this isn't a reasonable use of my time and resources, but I'm going to do it anyway.
 
2014-01-22 11:17:28 AM

jigger: mrshowrules: If a cop ignores jay walkers during a homicide investigation, isn't he selectively enforcing the laws.

It seems like that action is common sense, but you can't say it's not selective enforcement.


That action absolutely does make sense, and, yes, it is selective enforcement. What does this say about whether or not selective enforcement is necessarily a bad thing?
 
2014-01-22 11:29:31 AM

mrshowrules: If a cop ignores jay walkers during a homicide investigation, isn't he selectively enforcing the laws.


Yes he is. And he should.
 
2014-01-22 11:33:11 AM

El Morro: It's called "sensible allocation of limited funding, manpower and resources", and anyone who has a problem with this is either f*cking retarded, or a hardcore Republican.


How redundant of you.
 
2014-01-22 11:48:15 AM

thurstonxhowell: jigger: mrshowrules: If a cop ignores jay walkers during a homicide investigation, isn't he selectively enforcing the laws.

It seems like that action is common sense, but you can't say it's not selective enforcement.

That action absolutely does make sense, and, yes, it is selective enforcement. What does this say about whether or not selective enforcement is necessarily a bad thing?


I'd say it demonstrates quite well that you can't just say "selective enforcement is bad, full stop."  It depends on the situation, and as people have stated upthread, there's a big difference betweeen prioritization and prejudicial enforcement.  If ICE, INS, and DHS focus on cases that are actual problems, and let the immigrants who aren't doing any harm slide, that sounds closer to the jaywalking example.  If they just start cracking down on middle easterners or whichever specific group because they're afraid they MIGHT be terrorists or criminals, then there would be a problem.
 
2014-01-22 11:57:59 AM
The way I want the DHS to selectively enforce the laws is to arrest, jail, and fine the businessmen and businesswomen who hire illegal immigrants; usually because they don't want to pay a minimum wage or just look and grab someone off the street for jobs that need alot more scrutiny than a verbal, "Can you cook?" (business owner trying to avoid local health department regulations)
 
2014-01-22 12:09:55 PM

rev. dave: Selective enforcement of laws is tyranny.
It is better to remove laws you don't have the stomach to enforce than to leave it on the books and just use it against people you don't like.


Depends on why selection is taking place.

Prioritizing because of insufficient funds/time? Perfectly acceptable - we couldn't have laws without that.

ICE is backed up as it is. I would much prefer they do more jail checks and other agency assists than search around for the needle in the haystack fifteen-year immigrant who has already become as american as you orI.
 
2014-01-22 12:25:32 PM
BUILD. THE. GODDAMM. WALL.

Stop whining. Stop making excuses. Just do it.

THEN we can discuss amnesty, work visas, etc.
 
2014-01-22 12:28:36 PM

rev. dave: Selective enforcement of laws is tyranny.
It is better to remove laws you don't have the stomach to enforce than to leave it on the books and just use it against people you don't like.


It's also the difference between getting a warning from a cop and getting at ticket.

Selective enforcement is fine when agents have common sense and good training. Selective enforcement sucks donkey balls when the cops are more interested in power plays than actually serving their communities.
 
2014-01-22 12:38:16 PM

mark12A: BUILD. THE. GODDAMM. WALL.

Stop whining. Stop making excuses. Just do it.

THEN we can discuss amnesty, work visas, etc.


GIVE. ME. EVERYTHING. I. WANT.

Stop with your piddling crap about the things you want. You're stupid. Do what I want.

THEN I will continue to dismiss your moronic "ideas" because I will already have what I wanted.
 
2014-01-22 12:44:04 PM
Sounds like they have a sikh sense of humor...

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-22 01:06:10 PM

rev. dave: Selective enforcement of laws is tyranny.
It is better to remove laws you don't have the stomach to enforce than to leave it on the books and just use it against people you don't like.


Sometimes a town has one officer.  He must choose between going after a person he sees littering on one side of town and an ongoing hostage situation at the bank.   He allocates his resources in order to do the most good. He chooses to go after the bank robber and rescue the hostage and let the litterer go on for another day.Perhaps tomorrow, if there is free time, the litterer can be rounded up and justice delivered to him. Until then, I'm glad that most people understand what selective enforcement is and why we need to do it.
 
2014-01-22 01:06:31 PM

Peki: common sense and good training.


Knowing your posting history, I know what YOU mean by this.

However, those are hardly objective concepts which would allow us to say x is good if y is followed. The difference between the level of policing various americans want and how they want things policed is quite large.

Take something like using a broken tail light as an excuse* to stop someone he otherwise only had a hunch about criminal behavior, for example.  He is absolutely following his training: he is investigating based upon his hunches using valid levels of articulable facts to get him where he wants to go.  Personally I find that kind of thing obnoxious.  However, I would wager half the nation, if not more, thinks it a very reasonable and common sense approach on the part of the police officer. Then you still have to factor in stereotyping (which I don't think is pure racism by any stretch, as even black cops admit to doing it - the cops are looking at more than color, but at the same time they aren't color blind or culture blind).

In a case like that, I do think that everyone (as close to everyone as possible, within basic cost and time constraints of course) should be pulled over for broken tail lights, or nobody should and we should take it off the books.

*and it does provide all the suspicion a cop needs for a vehicle stop in and of itself, mind you, but it is an excuse because the cop doesn't actually care about the tail light
 
2014-01-22 01:11:18 PM
"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! "

--Statue of Liberty

My how far we've come...
 
2014-01-22 02:14:38 PM
Prosecutorial and enforcement discretion based on severity of the crime and potential harm has  always been an accepted and entirely legit part of law enforcement, subby.  Like, to the point that if the DHS  didn't dedicate more of their limited resources to nabbing cartel operatives than chasing migrant workers, they wouldn't really be doing their job at all.
 
2014-01-22 02:17:27 PM

thurstonxhowell: jigger: mrshowrules: If a cop ignores jay walkers during a homicide investigation, isn't he selectively enforcing the laws.

It seems like that action is common sense, but you can't say it's not selective enforcement.

That action absolutely does make sense, and, yes, it is selective enforcement. What does this say about whether or not selective enforcement is necessarily a bad thing?


I'm good with most of it because there are some really stupid laws out there that go unenforced, thankfully. But on the other hand enforcement selectivity tends to depend strongly on the prospects of revenue collection. If it rakes in money, you bet your ass it'll be enforced. If enforcement costs money, time, and effort well...
 
2014-01-22 02:46:34 PM

Smackledorfer: In a case like that, I do think that everyone (as close to everyone as possible, within basic cost and time constraints of course) should be pulled over for broken tail lights, or nobody should and we should take it off the books.


In California, the ACLU sued CHP over using such traffic stops to intimidate people into consenting to searches, and it was overwhelmingly minorities being searched. CHP settled, agreeing to stop requesting searches for minor traffic stops. This was 10 or 12 years ago, and I'm not sure if the settlement made it permanent, but in California, the CHP can't ask to search your vehicle if you get pulled over for traffic or vehicle code violations - at least, for a few years after the settlement.

Again, I'm not sure if the settlement made this restriction permanent, but I hope so.
 
2014-01-22 03:21:30 PM

drumhellar: Smackledorfer: In a case like that, I do think that everyone (as close to everyone as possible, within basic cost and time constraints of course) should be pulled over for broken tail lights, or nobody should and we should take it off the books.

In California, the ACLU sued CHP over using such traffic stops to intimidate people into consenting to searches, and it was overwhelmingly minorities being searched. CHP settled, agreeing to stop requesting searches for minor traffic stops. This was 10 or 12 years ago, and I'm not sure if the settlement made it permanent, but in California, the CHP can't ask to search your vehicle if you get pulled over for traffic or vehicle code violations - at least, for a few years after the settlement.

Again, I'm not sure if the settlement made this restriction permanent, but I hope so.


No legal agreement I know of could prevent a voluntary search request. I could be wrong, of course.

The proper response those requests is 'no', and teaching the ignorant they can say no. A common bit in the law is whether 'a reasonable person KNOWLEDGE of the law would feel free to leave, decline, etc'

Related note, the only person who decides whether action X is an arrest is the judge/jury. So the question, "am I under arrest" is worthless. 'Am I being detained' is the correct one.
 
2014-01-22 03:26:41 PM

keldaria: "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! "

--Statue of Liberty

My how far we've come...


Yeah, we used to have a legal, orderly process at Ellis Island.  Now, it's Fark You, I'm getting in any way I can.
 
2014-01-22 03:50:49 PM

Smackledorfer: No legal agreement I know of could prevent a voluntary search request. I could be wrong, of course.

The proper response those requests is 'no', and teaching the ignorant they can say no. A common bit in the law is whether 'a reasonable person KNOWLEDGE of the law would feel free to leave, decline, etc'


Sadly, the agreement only lasted until 2006.

LA Times had a decent article on it (Link) but left out some details of the suit, namely that CHP were being trained specifically to look for "mixed couples" as part of efforts to reign in drug smuggling (Training documents were revealed that had this listed, among other factors).
 
2014-01-22 03:54:04 PM

Cat Food Sandwiches: keldaria: "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! "

--Statue of Liberty

My how far we've come...

Yeah, we used to have a legal, orderly process at Ellis Island.  Now, it's Fark You, I'm getting in any way I can.


At the same time they were coming into the elementary schools to tell us there wasn't going to be enough room on the roads and things like enough water for us to go on having children like we had in the past, they were opening up the flood gates and playing the illegal aliens into the hands of the criminals in business.

The statue of liberty didn't come with that plaque. It was added later.

The tablet she holds has the dates of the French and American revolutions.
 
2014-01-22 05:03:53 PM

Smackledorfer: Knowing your posting history, I know what YOU mean by this.


I'll take that as a compliment, thanks. LOL

Smackledorfer: Take something like using a broken tail light as an excuse* to stop someone he otherwise only had a hunch about criminal behavior, for example.


This is actually a good example, because the problem is multi-level. For the cop, sure, he may be following a hunch. To the average Joe schmoe with a busted tail-light and doesn't know it, it looks like a shakedown for money because the city can't pay its bills (fix-it tickets are $50 in Los Angeles to clear). So now you have a pissed off driver who thinks he's being essentially stolen from and thinks it's personal because the cop could have just given him a warning and let him go, and a cop who is nervous to start with. Bad combination. The cop is assuming you're a criminal trying to get away with it, and you assume you're being treated like one and the cop is getting way with it.

If you take the law off the books, then you have people with cars with tail-lights that don't work, and I think (feel free to prove me wrong) that we both agree that's an unsafe condition to be operating a motor vehicle in, especially at night. So what's the compromise?

Perhaps a bigger issue is the ignorance cops have over what the law actually states? For example, the cop that gave me my busted brake light ticket last year had no clue that it was $50 to clear the ticket, and another cop tried to ticket my SIL for a busted tail light that wasn't legally required to operate. Hard to consistently enforce the law if you have no clue what the law actually says, and plays right into Joe Schmoe's suspicions up above.
 
2014-01-22 05:28:49 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: OK, fine, subby.  Propose to me how you're going to fund the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment to build the Great Wall of Texas and round up that last illegal immigrant.

Difficulty:  the usual figure of 11 million illegal immigrants is about the number of people, Jew and Gentile, who died in the Holocaust.[1]  Now consider the trouble and expense that Nazi Germany had to incur to pull that off.  It might well have cost them the war.

So fund the Vaterlandssicherheitsdepartment to that level.  And STFU when the tax man cometh.

[1]Yeah, I went there.  If the jackboot fits, wear it.


It would cost 160 billion USD.
 
2014-01-22 07:13:17 PM
NOW
COPS
GO THE INTERSTATE
GIVE EVERYONE SPEEDING TICKETS
 
2014-01-22 07:53:34 PM

mark12A: BUILD. THE. GODDAMM. WALL.

Stop whining. Stop making excuses. Just do it.

THEN we can discuss amnesty, work visas, etc.


How do you propose we effectively monitor a wall that blocks the entirety of the US/Mexico border? How do you propose to build a wall that desperate immigrants can't go over/under/through/around? How do you propose to have enough people on the wall to react to anyone attempting to go over under/through/around if you do manage to monitor the whole thing? And how do you propose to pay for all this without raising the deficit or raising taxes?

/Funny how Republicans, for all their 'LESS SPENDING! LESS TAXES! DEFICITS ARE ALWAYS BAD!' love to "solve" "problems" with over-expensive, ultimately useless boondoggles. See also: F-35.
//Want to cut down on illegal immigration? Fine companies that hire illegal immigrants to near-bankruptcy, and/or give executives jail time. Alternatively, streamline the legal immigration process and make it cheaper.
 
2014-01-22 08:15:30 PM

LordJiro: mark12A: BUILD. THE. GODDAMM. WALL.

Stop whining. Stop making excuses. Just do it.

THEN we can discuss amnesty, work visas, etc.

How do you propose we effectively monitor a wall that blocks the entirety of the US/Mexico border? How do you propose to build a wall that desperate immigrants can't go over/under/through/around? How do you propose to have enough people on the wall to react to anyone attempting to go over under/through/around if you do manage to monitor the whole thing? And how do you propose to pay for all this without raising the deficit or raising taxes?

/Funny how Republicans, for all their 'LESS SPENDING! LESS TAXES! DEFICITS ARE ALWAYS BAD!' love to "solve" "problems" with over-expensive, ultimately useless boondoggles. See also: F-35.
//Want to cut down on illegal immigration? Fine companies that hire illegal immigrants to near-bankruptcy, and/or give executives jail time. Alternatively, streamline the legal immigration process and make it cheaper.


A mine field would solve a lot of those problems.
 
2014-01-22 08:35:27 PM

another cultural observer: LordJiro: mark12A: BUILD. THE. GODDAMM. WALL.

Stop whining. Stop making excuses. Just do it.

THEN we can discuss amnesty, work visas, etc.

How do you propose we effectively monitor a wall that blocks the entirety of the US/Mexico border? How do you propose to build a wall that desperate immigrants can't go over/under/through/around? How do you propose to have enough people on the wall to react to anyone attempting to go over under/through/around if you do manage to monitor the whole thing? And how do you propose to pay for all this without raising the deficit or raising taxes?

/Funny how Republicans, for all their 'LESS SPENDING! LESS TAXES! DEFICITS ARE ALWAYS BAD!' love to "solve" "problems" with over-expensive, ultimately useless boondoggles. See also: F-35.
//Want to cut down on illegal immigration? Fine companies that hire illegal immigrants to near-bankruptcy, and/or give executives jail time. Alternatively, streamline the legal immigration process and make it cheaper.

A mine field would solve a lot of those problems.


Ignoring the "illegal and disgustingly brutal" aspects of that, how do you propose to maintain this minefield? Mines tend to explode and not replenish themselves, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to blow up a mine without getting yourself killed, thereby opening up a pathway for others to just walk across.
 
2014-01-22 09:21:04 PM

LordJiro: another cultural observer: LordJiro: mark12A: BUILD. THE. GODDAMM. WALL.

Stop whining. Stop making excuses. Just do it.

THEN we can discuss amnesty, work visas, etc.

How do you propose we effectively monitor a wall that blocks the entirety of the US/Mexico border? How do you propose to build a wall that desperate immigrants can't go over/under/through/around? How do you propose to have enough people on the wall to react to anyone attempting to go over under/through/around if you do manage to monitor the whole thing? And how do you propose to pay for all this without raising the deficit or raising taxes?

/Funny how Republicans, for all their 'LESS SPENDING! LESS TAXES! DEFICITS ARE ALWAYS BAD!' love to "solve" "problems" with over-expensive, ultimately useless boondoggles. See also: F-35.
//Want to cut down on illegal immigration? Fine companies that hire illegal immigrants to near-bankruptcy, and/or give executives jail time. Alternatively, streamline the legal immigration process and make it cheaper.

A mine field would solve a lot of those problems.

Ignoring the "illegal and disgustingly brutal" aspects of that, how do you propose to maintain this minefield? Mines tend to explode and not replenish themselves, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to blow up a mine without getting yourself killed, thereby opening up a pathway for others to just walk across.


Southern racist volunteer militias manning the walls with machine guns will prevent people from "just walking across"....well, that's the cheapest option.  As far as maintaining a minefield, I'm sure no military on earth has figured out how to maintain a minefield yet.  Plus, once the word is out that the gringos have mined the border, border crossing attempts will dramatically decrease.
 
2014-01-22 11:40:18 PM

BMFPitt: El Morro: It's called "sensible allocation of limited funding, manpower and resources", and anyone who has a problem with this is either f*cking retarded, or a hardcore Republican.

How redundant of you.


I didn't notice that until a half second after I hit "enter".  My immediate next thought was, "Oh boy, here it comes."

/and there it is
 
Displayed 39 of 39 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report