Concerning the death penalty, at least as it exists and is understood today, I oppose it.
It's not that I am particularly averse to the destruction of those who are irredeemable, it's that I do not believe the State should have the power of life and death over the People.
Concerning the death penalty, at least as it exists and is understood today, I oppose it.
It's not that I am particularly averse to the destruction of those who are irredeemable, it's that I do not believe the State should have the power of life and death over the People.
This reminds me of a C. S. Lewis essay, Equality: "Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters."
I'm against the death penalty because way, WAY too many innocent people have been exonerated after being on death row for decades, many with DNA evidence. Studies show that has many as 1 in 25 people on death row are innocent. That is 4%. If those numbers are even REMOTELY correct, that means we have executed scores of innocent people. That is a hell of a price to pay for society at large feeling a sense of vengeance. Can you even imagine what it must feel like to be an innocent person in the middle of receiving a lethal injection?? What must the rage and sorrow and emotions be like in that moment?? And it has probably happened hundreds of times.
I think even people like Manson could be reformed. It sure as hell wouldn't be easy it would take a lot of work and wanting to make the effort. And I wouldn't let him near kids or something. He could do something worthwhile - in jail considering the horror of his crimes. But yeah even he could serve a purpose. Locking people in solitary and treating people like shit isn't the answer. Maybe Manson could take care of chickens. I dunno.
I don't have all the answers for what to do with people who have clearly demonstrated that they do not wish to live by society's rules/laws (other than locking them away at the public's expense), but if you are going to execute someone you have to be 100% certain that they are guilty of that crime. Other than physical and/or photographic evidence which clearly indicate culpability--they left DNA at the scene or on the victim *and* there is a video clip of them committing the crime--the only other method would be telepathy. No, I know it doesn't exist, but that would certainly establish guilt. One telepath for the prosecutor, one for the defense, and one impartial one for the court itself. If all three read the same thing then that establishes guilt beyond anyone's reasonable doubt. Anyway...in reality we have to rely on physical evidence.
I don't have all the answers for what to do with people who have clearly demonstrated that they do not wish to live by society's rules/laws (other than locking them away at the public's expense), but if you are going to execute someone you have to be 100% certain that they are guilty of that crime. Other than physical and/or photographic evidence which clearly indicate culpability--they left DNA at the scene or on the victim *and* there is a video clip of them committing the crime--the only other method would be telepathy. No, I know it doesn't exist, but that would certainly establish guilt. One telepath for the prosecutor, one for the defense, and one impartial one for the court itself. If all three read the same thing then that establishes guilt beyond anyone's reasonable doubt. Anyway...in reality we have to rely on physical evidence.
I don't see how anyone can reasonably object to a law that says the death penalty cannot be handed-out without DNA evidence (which is almost scientifically irrefutable) playing a part in the guilty verdict. I suppose a video clip or photo of someone actually firing a gun at someone would suffice as well. But we cannot be handing out death sentences simply based on eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. I need something concrete. Having to spend life in prison if you are unjustly convicted is bad enough. But there is no reason we should be killing people by mistake. If you want to seek the death penalty as a prosecutor, you should have to have incontrovertible evidence. A charge above first-degree murder in which the burden of proof in the trial becomes very heavy, and requires the above mentioned evidence to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I don't see how anyone can reasonably object to a law that says the death penalty cannot be handed-out without DNA evidence (which is almost scientifically irrefutable) playing a part in the guilty verdict. I suppose a video clip or photo of someone actually firing a gun at someone would suffice as well. But we cannot be handing out death sentences simply based on eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. I need something concrete. Having to spend life in prison if you are unjustly convicted is bad enough. But there is no reason we should be killing people by mistake. If you want to seek the death penalty as a prosecutor, you should have to have incontrovertible evidence. A charge above first-degree murder in which the burden of proof in the trial becomes very heavy, and requires the above mentioned evidence to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
If all necessary conditions are observed perfectly then DNA evidence is extremely reliable. However, the chances of all necessary conditions being observed perfectly is negligible. In practice DNA evidence is often very suspect. In the past in the UK convictions could be based on DNA evidence alone, but as a result of greater understanding of the problems it's become apparent that led to clear miscarriages of justice in quite a few cases and doubts over thousands more. A conviction would now never be possible based only on DNA evidence.
I don't see how anyone can reasonably object to a law that says the death penalty cannot be handed-out without DNA evidence (which is almost scientifically irrefutable) playing a part in the guilty verdict. I suppose a video clip or photo of someone actually firing a gun at someone would suffice as well. But we cannot be handing out death sentences simply based on eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. I need something concrete. Having to spend life in prison if you are unjustly convicted is bad enough. But there is no reason we should be killing people by mistake. If you want to seek the death penalty as a prosecutor, you should have to have incontrovertible evidence. A charge above first-degree murder in which the burden of proof in the trial becomes very heavy, and requires the above mentioned evidence to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'm taking Statistics, Business Law, Fraud Examination and Forensic Accounting, and other courses for accounting.
Pretty much in a 2 day span BLAW and Forensic stated separately that the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, is basically a confidence interval of 90%. 2 days later, we got to talking about confidence intervals in BStats II (Not that we didn't also cover it in BStats I, but the semester is still new) and that 95% is basically the usual standard for publication.
Personally, to me, I think that is a HORRENDOUSLY low bar to set, at least for capital crimes.
And that's higher burden of proof than civil cases, which is "preponderance of the evidence" (51%).
Also, there's not really anything above first-degree murder. That IS the highest. There may be some obscure crime about aggravated murder of a public official in the course of their duties or something which would basically be First Degree+more.
@Quickblade How would you define the confidence interval in a criminal investigation? It has many constituent parts, many of which are not strictly quantifiable, and other, while perhaps quantifiable, not necessarily well-defined in terms of statistics.
That would leave us with another question: how would we determine if someone cannot be reformed? Would a certain number of offenses make them qualify? A certain type of offense, or special circumstances? Psychological evaluations? All of the above? If it is all of the above, how much should each factor weigh in that decision? An algorithm of some sort would probably be the ideal method, but I don't know what the algorithm would look like.
I would assume the US justice system would use it's normal criteria: Pale skin = redeemable, dark skin = unsalvageable.
ICE has entered into a contract with Vigilant Solutions, a company which manages a nationwide license plate recognition and identification database used by other law enforcement agencies. Now all ICE has to do is outfit its vehicles with license plate readers--many police cars already have these--and it can figure out, almost in real time, whether cars in a parking lot have any listed owners who are not legal.
Yes, immigration laws which are on the books need to be enforced but come on--how heavy-handed are they going to become? Lately they have been conducting early-morning raids at 7-11s and Home Depots.
I tend to be sympathetic to immigration, but I don't see why this would be a bad thing. It doesn't involve racial profiling (immoral and unconstitutional) or in-person harassment (illegal) or raids (disruptive and dangerous if not flat-out illegal). This is just a tool to give law enforcement more information, and all it requires is a scanner.
A law enforcement officer driving through a parking lot, scanning everyone's license plates, looking for people who might have a warrant out for their arrest, is tantamount to presuming that everyone (at least those car owners) is guilty. There is no probable cause given by a parked car which would give the officer a reason to run its plates, unless it matches the description of a known stolen car, it is parked in a handicapped spot without a placard, or its registration is out of date. Of course, police always use that first reason--"your car matched the description of a stolen car" or "matched the description of a car which was used in the commission of a crime"--and you, as a private citizen, most likely cannot dispute those assertions because you don't have access to their list of open warrants or investigations.
Meanwhile, in other immigration news, investigators stopped another truck in Laredo which was found to be carrying 76 people into the United States illegally, some of them children. This happens every few weeks but doesn't always make the news unless the coyotes ditched the trailer and someone finds it after everyone inside is dead.
ICE has entered into a contract with Vigilant Solutions, a company which manages a nationwide license plate recognition and identification database used by other law enforcement agencies. Now all ICE has to do is outfit its vehicles with license plate readers--many police cars already have these--and it can figure out, almost in real time, whether cars in a parking lot have any listed owners who are not legal.
Yes, immigration laws which are on the books need to be enforced but come on--how heavy-handed are they going to become? Lately they have been conducting early-morning raids at 7-11s and Home Depots.
It isn't just that. Some hotels have been handing over guest book information. Beyond that, a couple weeks ago, a Greyhound bus in Flordia was stopped where everyone aboard was asked for proof of citizenship. This would seem blantantly illegal, but, apparently, if you are within 100 miles of a border, you are subject to these searches. Which effectively means that if you live ANYWHERE in a state like Vermont or Florida, you have no 4th Amendment rights. Police state.
I was thinking the other day that unless you are a native American, you are a illegal immigrant.
We are all just people.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If you were born in this country then you, also, are a native American (as opposed to Native American, a different way of referencing the First Nations). You cannot be an immigrant, illegal or otherwise, if you were born here.
It isn't just that. Some hotels have been handing over guest book information. Beyond that, a couple weeks ago, a Greyhound bus in Flordia was stopped where everyone aboard was asked for proof of citizenship. This would seem blantantly illegal, but, apparently, if you are within 100 miles of a border, you are subject to these searches. Which effectively means that if you live ANYWHERE in a state like Vermont or Florida, you have no 4th Amendment rights. Police state.
I will have to double-check to see if this is still in effect, but for a while after 11 Sept the Bush Administration, with the approval of Congress, was able to "weaken" Constitutional rights within 100 miles of the border under the auspices of the then-nascent Dept. of Homeland Security (it may not even have been called that at the time). You could not claim Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search/seizure, etc.
In case anyone is wondering, 100 miles is, as @jjstraka34 notes, enough to completely cover certain States. You live in Houston? Too bad. San Antonio? No, you're good...but only barely. New Orleans? Too bad. Chicago? No, you're okay there. Anyway...if that is still in effect that would explain the bus incident.
*************
I normally don't pay attention to entertainment news but they held the premier for Black Panther in Hollywood last night and the general consensus is that it is an *amazing* movie. Although not the first superhero movie featuring a central character who is black--as far as I know that goes to Wesley Snipes in Blade, back before Marvel Studios was Marvel Studios and they were just beginning to learn how to make movies--this movie promises to be Winter Soldier level of good--not just a really well-made superhero movie but a really well-made *movie*.
I tend to be sympathetic to immigration, but I don't see why this would be a bad thing. It doesn't involve racial profiling (immoral and unconstitutional) or in-person harassment (illegal) or raids (disruptive and dangerous if not flat-out illegal). This is just a tool to give law enforcement more information, and all it requires is a scanner.
It's a bad thing because U.S. immigration law, as currently written, is completely untenable. There are around 10 million people who can legally be deported, but actually deporting 10 million people would be a forced migration of world-historic scale. To find examples of forced population transfer events approaching that magnitude, you basically have to look to Stalin, Hitler, or the transatlantic slave trade. Right now, procedural limitations on the enforcement of our immigration laws are the only thing stopping that.
I don't see how anyone can reasonably object to a law that says the death penalty cannot be handed-out without DNA evidence (which is almost scientifically irrefutable) playing a part in the guilty verdict. I suppose a video clip or photo of someone actually firing a gun at someone would suffice as well. But we cannot be handing out death sentences simply based on eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. I need something concrete. Having to spend life in prison if you are unjustly convicted is bad enough. But there is no reason we should be killing people by mistake. If you want to seek the death penalty as a prosecutor, you should have to have incontrovertible evidence. A charge above first-degree murder in which the burden of proof in the trial becomes very heavy, and requires the above mentioned evidence to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'm taking Statistics, Business Law, Fraud Examination and Forensic Accounting, and other courses for accounting.
Pretty much in a 2 day span BLAW and Forensic stated separately that the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, is basically a confidence interval of 90%. 2 days later, we got to talking about confidence intervals in BStats II (Not that we didn't also cover it in BStats I, but the semester is still new) and that 95% is basically the usual standard for publication.
Personally, to me, I think that is a HORRENDOUSLY low bar to set, at least for capital crimes.
And that's higher burden of proof than civil cases, which is "preponderance of the evidence" (51%).
Also, there's not really anything above first-degree murder. That IS the highest. There may be some obscure crime about aggravated murder of a public official in the course of their duties or something which would basically be First Degree+more.
To be clear, there is no numerical standard for the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof. In fact, judges will disallow parties from attempting to attach a confidence interval to the standard.
Also, 51% is incorrect for a preponderance of the evidence. It is anything over 50%, or as I like to refer to it: 50% of all available evidence plus a feather.
Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. If you were born in this country then you, also, are a native American (as opposed to Native American, a different way of referencing the First Nations). You cannot be an immigrant, illegal or otherwise, if you were born here.
Agreed--we are all just people.
Yeah I was talking about capital N Native Americans. They were here and Columbus showed up followed later by what could be called illegal immigrants. Later these immigrants just told the First Nations people oh by the way this land is ours now and you can't stay here.
According to Google there weren't immigration laws until the late 1800s. That's not so long ago, maybe the time of people's great grandparents.
ICE has entered into a contract with Vigilant Solutions, a company which manages a nationwide license plate recognition and identification database used by other law enforcement agencies. Now all ICE has to do is outfit its vehicles with license plate readers--many police cars already have these--and it can figure out, almost in real time, whether cars in a parking lot have any listed owners who are not legal.
Yes, immigration laws which are on the books need to be enforced but come on--how heavy-handed are they going to become? Lately they have been conducting early-morning raids at 7-11s and Home Depots.
It isn't just that. Some hotels have been handing over guest book information. Beyond that, a couple weeks ago, a Greyhound bus in Flordia was stopped where everyone aboard was asked for proof of citizenship. This would seem blantantly illegal, but, apparently, if you are within 100 miles of a border, you are subject to these searches. Which effectively means that if you live ANYWHERE in a state like Vermont or Florida, you have no 4th Amendment rights. Police state.
Whether this is a violation of the Fourth Amendments ban on unreasonable search and seizure relies on whether or not there was probable cause. That's a factual question, and can't be determined by just citing a stopped bus.
Our immigration system is broken, and its sad to see such a protectionist attitude among our native born population. I personally favor an Ellis Island system, but I'll take any deal I can get that makes immigration simpler and allows DACA beneficiaries to stay (though I'd prefer DACA be passed by congress)
People don't want me to fire him, so lets just charge him instead.
For all you who voted for Hillary because you thought she was corrupt, this is what corruption looks like and you are only a year in. Good luck.
Yeah.
Trump told us if we voted for Hillary we'd get a President who was totally corrupt and under criminal investigation. Turns out he was right no matter how you voted.
Yeah I was talking about capital N Native Americans. They were here and Columbus showed up followed later by what could be called illegal immigrants. Later these immigrants just told the First Nations people oh by the way this land is ours now and you can't stay here.
According to Google there weren't immigration laws until the late 1800s. That's not so long ago, maybe the time of people's great grandparents.
Again, the term "illegal immigrant" would not apply to people who showed up post-Columbus, usually taking land under the "finders keepers" or "I have a gun" methods of ownership, because the First Nations did not have a system of laws in place regarding new people showing up on their doorstep. Even if they did have such laws in place it wouldn't have mattered--European settlers had access to guns, a technology which the First Nations never had a need to develop.
Ironically, it was their very isolation which kept the First Nations at what was, essentially, a Stone Age level of technology. This is not blame, mind you, only a statement of facts. They never had the need to mass produce metal weapons, metal armor, develop gunpowder, siege engines, etc. because they didn't have dozens of hostile civilizations all colliding with each other like they did in Central Asia and Europe. There was enough space for my group to be over here, either planting crops or following the herds, while your group stayed way over there doing the same thing and there wasn't much need for us to interact, except for maybe trading for a few things which I had that you did not (and vice versa). Anyway...this set up the situation so that when their civilization encountered another civilization which was more technologically advanced the usual series of events took place--the civilization with the more advanced level of technology won. That doesn't make it "right" or "correct", only an indication that that was how the world worked at that time.
Those of us who are alive now can say "well, *I* wouldn't have done that stuff" but the reality of the situation is that if you had been born in 1560, your family was from an aristocratic background, and you were looking to make your fortune in the New World then you would have done your share of plundering, as well--you wouldn't have known any better. In fact, you would have been absolutely convinced that you were doing the right thing. Again, this is not blame or a personal shot, only an indication that that was how the world thought back then. We often judge the past through the lens of our current level of understanding--and there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that--but we cannot *judge* people in the past the way we would judge people now. Instead, we take a look at their failures, their wrongdoing, and we strive to do better than they did.
Incidentally, I would love to be alive 200 years from now and listen to people in 2218 talk about how stupid and backwards we were at this time.
*************
Yes, many people in the United States now are here as a result of the huge waves of immigration which occurred in the later half of the 19th Century through the middle of the 20th Century. My family members were here before then, as far as I recall, but in all honesty I have *zero* interest in tracing my family history. I don't care where they came from, who they were, what they did, or any of that crap. Their lives mean nothing to me and they certainly don't define me or have any effect on me or influence how I am as a result of my own life and the choices I have made. I never begrudge anyone else tracing their family history, of course, even if I do quietly think it is a waste of time.
*************
DACA beneficiaries....well, some of them might like to claim that they are "undocumented" but they really aren't. They finished high school, they have driver's licenses, they graduated college (or are currently attending), they have jobs, own property, etc. There is a paperwork trail establishing them as being as much a citizen of the United States as someone who was born here. I know a lot of people don't like the word "amnesty" but you might as well go ahead and give it to them--their conversion into full citizens is already 99% complete.
@deltago No one is going to charge Mueller with any crimes just like they aren't going to fire him. Ignore all the noise, just listen to the song instead of the music.
Can you name five European countries with open boarders? How about five Asian countries with open boarders? Three South American countries with open boarders? Is anyone able to just travel to any African country and declare it is their new home?
So why would the United States be any different? While the idea of open boarders is interesting, looking at things logically there are several problems with just letting anyone in. Medically speaking there are vaccinations. Where do the people come from, do they have proper vaccinations or might they be carrying something which might be passed on to others. One may argue the solution is the government gives these migrants vaccinations as they check in for free. If there is a controlled amount of people who cross the border than the government could check and ensure everyone is medical safe enough to cross into the country, however if everyone has that right to pass on through than there will not be the resources for that. Speaking of resources what about education? Those crossing the boarders (especially if they are to live here forever and want to be citizens) need to know our laws, legal system, and the basics to gain employment, and help their fellow citizen economically. I do not believe all migrants need to be able to have highly skilled jobs, however there is high enough unemployment in the United States that could be taking unskilled labour positions.
There is also the argument that many who come into the country take jobs nobody wants. People will take jobs depending on the pay and benefits. While typically I will not apply for a job as a janitor, I have seen some janitor positions in the government (parks and recreation) which pays between $18 - $ 24 a hour for the entry level janitor. I have applied to such jobs.
Can you name five European countries with open boarders? How about five Asian countries with open boarders? Three South American countries with open boarders? Is anyone able to just travel to any African country and declare it is their new home?
So why would the United States be any different? While the idea of open boarders is interesting, looking at things logically there are several problems with just letting anyone in. Medically speaking there are vaccinations. Where do the people come from, do they have proper vaccinations or might they be carrying something which might be passed on to others. One may argue the solution is the government gives these migrants vaccinations as they check in for free. If there is a controlled amount of people who cross the border than the government could check and ensure everyone is medical safe enough to cross into the country, however if everyone has that right to pass on through than there will not be the resources for that. Speaking of resources what about education? Those crossing the boarders (especially if they are to live here forever and want to be citizens) need to know our laws, legal system, and the basics to gain employment, and help their fellow citizen economically. I do not believe all migrants need to be able to have highly skilled jobs, however there is high enough unemployment in the United States that could be taking unskilled labour positions.
There is also the argument that many who come into the country take jobs nobody wants. People will take jobs depending on the pay and benefits. While typically I will not apply for a job as a janitor, I have seen some janitor positions in the government (parks and recreation) which pays between $18 - $ 24 a hour for the entry level janitor. I have applied to such jobs.
We don't have open borders. Where does this idea come from?? Illegal immigration has been at a net negative for years. The problem, if one even exists, has been taking care of itself, because our economy has been stagnant at best for decades.
Can you name five European countries with open boarders? How about five Asian countries with open boarders? Three South American countries with open boarders? Is anyone able to just travel to any African country and declare it is their new home?
So why would the United States be any different? While the idea of open boarders is interesting, looking at things logically there are several problems with just letting anyone in. Medically speaking there are vaccinations. Where do the people come from, do they have proper vaccinations or might they be carrying something which might be passed on to others. One may argue the solution is the government gives these migrants vaccinations as they check in for free. If there is a controlled amount of people who cross the border than the government could check and ensure everyone is medical safe enough to cross into the country, however if everyone has that right to pass on through than there will not be the resources for that. Speaking of resources what about education? Those crossing the boarders (especially if they are to live here forever and want to be citizens) need to know our laws, legal system, and the basics to gain employment, and help their fellow citizen economically. I do not believe all migrants need to be able to have highly skilled jobs, however there is high enough unemployment in the United States that could be taking unskilled labour positions.
There is also the argument that many who come into the country take jobs nobody wants. People will take jobs depending on the pay and benefits. While typically I will not apply for a job as a janitor, I have seen some janitor positions in the government (parks and recreation) which pays between $18 - $ 24 a hour for the entry level janitor. I have applied to such jobs.
We don't have open borders. Where does this idea come from?? Illegal immigration has been at a net negative for years. The problem, if one even exists, has been taking care of itself, because our economy has been stagnant at best for decades.
Wages have been stagnant for decades. But Trump would tell you the economy is booming. I guess it is for people in the top 1%.
The United States does not have open borders. Immigrants do have to meet a set of criteria to move here. Even DACA has a set of requirements; not everyone qualifies. Even the Democratic party's plans for immigrants don't involve giving citizenship for everyone, or even letting everyone in as non-citizens. Really, the difference between left and right on immigration is just that one of them is more opposed to immigration (sometimes just illegal, sometimes both legal and illegal) and talks about it more.
It's not like we're making a decision between "open borders with zero limits whatsoever and everyone enjoys the same rights as citizens with no exceptions" and "ban immigration and deport millions of people." The Democratic party doesn't support the former and the Republican party doesn't support the latter.
The European Union does have open borders within the European Union. The idea was that if people could move freely between European countries without fussing with paperwork, it would make commerce and tourism more efficient and be good for the economy overall. Individual countries would limit who could enter them from outside the European Union, but anyone from the EU could enter without trouble.
That's why we had Brexit. Germany was bringing in Syrian refugees on its own elective and people in the UK were opposed to it because if the Syrians were allowed to enter Germany, they could then enter the UK freely. Leaving the European Union meant that the UK could limit the influx of refugees from other European countries who wanted to move to the UK.
I don't agree with Brexit--it seems like a solution in want of a problem--but that was the basic idea. Leaving the EU allowed the UK to have effectively stricter limits on immigration.
It's not like we're making a decision between "open borders with zero limits whatsoever and everyone enjoys the same rights as citizens with no exceptions" and "ban immigration and deport millions of people." The Democratic party doesn't support the former and the Republican party doesn't support the latter.
The Republican party does support deporting millions of people, in the sense that the official party platform opposes "any form of amnesty." I suspect that almost every national-level GOP politician except Steve King understands how destructive it would be to actually deport millions of people, but they consistently refuse to embrace any solution that protects millions of people from deportation.
Comments
It's not that I am particularly averse to the destruction of those who are irredeemable, it's that I do not believe the State should have the power of life and death over the People.
This is a good summary of the sorts of problems you can get.
Pretty much in a 2 day span BLAW and Forensic stated separately that the definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" for criminal cases, is basically a confidence interval of 90%. 2 days later, we got to talking about confidence intervals in BStats II (Not that we didn't also cover it in BStats I, but the semester is still new) and that 95% is basically the usual standard for publication.
Personally, to me, I think that is a HORRENDOUSLY low bar to set, at least for capital crimes.
And that's higher burden of proof than civil cases, which is "preponderance of the evidence" (51%).
Also, there's not really anything above first-degree murder. That IS the highest. There may be some obscure crime about aggravated murder of a public official in the course of their duties or something which would basically be First Degree+more.
Yes, immigration laws which are on the books need to be enforced but come on--how heavy-handed are they going to become? Lately they have been conducting early-morning raids at 7-11s and Home Depots.
Meanwhile, in other immigration news, investigators stopped another truck in Laredo which was found to be carrying 76 people into the United States illegally, some of them children. This happens every few weeks but doesn't always make the news unless the coyotes ditched the trailer and someone finds it after everyone inside is dead.
We are all just people.
Agreed--we are all just people. I will have to double-check to see if this is still in effect, but for a while after 11 Sept the Bush Administration, with the approval of Congress, was able to "weaken" Constitutional rights within 100 miles of the border under the auspices of the then-nascent Dept. of Homeland Security (it may not even have been called that at the time). You could not claim Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search/seizure, etc.
In case anyone is wondering, 100 miles is, as @jjstraka34 notes, enough to completely cover certain States. You live in Houston? Too bad. San Antonio? No, you're good...but only barely. New Orleans? Too bad. Chicago? No, you're okay there. Anyway...if that is still in effect that would explain the bus incident.
*************
I normally don't pay attention to entertainment news but they held the premier for Black Panther in Hollywood last night and the general consensus is that it is an *amazing* movie. Although not the first superhero movie featuring a central character who is black--as far as I know that goes to Wesley Snipes in Blade, back before Marvel Studios was Marvel Studios and they were just beginning to learn how to make movies--this movie promises to be Winter Soldier level of good--not just a really well-made superhero movie but a really well-made *movie*.
People don't want me to fire him, so lets just charge him instead.
For all you who voted for Hillary because you thought she was corrupt, this is what corruption looks like and you are only a year in. Good luck.
Also, 51% is incorrect for a preponderance of the evidence. It is anything over 50%, or as I like to refer to it: 50% of all available evidence plus a feather.
According to Google there weren't immigration laws until the late 1800s. That's not so long ago, maybe the time of people's great grandparents.
Our immigration system is broken, and its sad to see such a protectionist attitude among our native born population. I personally favor an Ellis Island system, but I'll take any deal I can get that makes immigration simpler and allows DACA beneficiaries to stay (though I'd prefer DACA be passed by congress)
Trump told us if we voted for Hillary we'd get a President who was totally corrupt and under criminal investigation. Turns out he was right no matter how you voted.
Ironically, it was their very isolation which kept the First Nations at what was, essentially, a Stone Age level of technology. This is not blame, mind you, only a statement of facts. They never had the need to mass produce metal weapons, metal armor, develop gunpowder, siege engines, etc. because they didn't have dozens of hostile civilizations all colliding with each other like they did in Central Asia and Europe. There was enough space for my group to be over here, either planting crops or following the herds, while your group stayed way over there doing the same thing and there wasn't much need for us to interact, except for maybe trading for a few things which I had that you did not (and vice versa). Anyway...this set up the situation so that when their civilization encountered another civilization which was more technologically advanced the usual series of events took place--the civilization with the more advanced level of technology won. That doesn't make it "right" or "correct", only an indication that that was how the world worked at that time.
Those of us who are alive now can say "well, *I* wouldn't have done that stuff" but the reality of the situation is that if you had been born in 1560, your family was from an aristocratic background, and you were looking to make your fortune in the New World then you would have done your share of plundering, as well--you wouldn't have known any better. In fact, you would have been absolutely convinced that you were doing the right thing. Again, this is not blame or a personal shot, only an indication that that was how the world thought back then. We often judge the past through the lens of our current level of understanding--and there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that--but we cannot *judge* people in the past the way we would judge people now. Instead, we take a look at their failures, their wrongdoing, and we strive to do better than they did.
Incidentally, I would love to be alive 200 years from now and listen to people in 2218 talk about how stupid and backwards we were at this time.
*************
Yes, many people in the United States now are here as a result of the huge waves of immigration which occurred in the later half of the 19th Century through the middle of the 20th Century. My family members were here before then, as far as I recall, but in all honesty I have *zero* interest in tracing my family history. I don't care where they came from, who they were, what they did, or any of that crap. Their lives mean nothing to me and they certainly don't define me or have any effect on me or influence how I am as a result of my own life and the choices I have made. I never begrudge anyone else tracing their family history, of course, even if I do quietly think it is a waste of time.
*************
DACA beneficiaries....well, some of them might like to claim that they are "undocumented" but they really aren't. They finished high school, they have driver's licenses, they graduated college (or are currently attending), they have jobs, own property, etc. There is a paperwork trail establishing them as being as much a citizen of the United States as someone who was born here. I know a lot of people don't like the word "amnesty" but you might as well go ahead and give it to them--their conversion into full citizens is already 99% complete.
@deltago No one is going to charge Mueller with any crimes just like they aren't going to fire him. Ignore all the noise, just listen to the song instead of the music.
So why would the United States be any different? While the idea of open boarders is interesting, looking at things logically there are several problems with just letting anyone in. Medically speaking there are vaccinations. Where do the people come from, do they have proper vaccinations or might they be carrying something which might be passed on to others. One may argue the solution is the government gives these migrants vaccinations as they check in for free. If there is a controlled amount of people who cross the border than the government could check and ensure everyone is medical safe enough to cross into the country, however if everyone has that right to pass on through than there will not be the resources for that.
Speaking of resources what about education? Those crossing the boarders (especially if they are to live here forever and want to be citizens) need to know our laws, legal system, and the basics to gain employment, and help their fellow citizen economically. I do not believe all migrants need to be able to have highly skilled jobs, however there is high enough unemployment in the United States that could be taking unskilled labour positions.
There is also the argument that many who come into the country take jobs nobody wants. People will take jobs depending on the pay and benefits. While typically I will not apply for a job as a janitor, I have seen some janitor positions in the government (parks and recreation) which pays between $18 - $ 24 a hour for the entry level janitor. I have applied to such jobs.
It's not like we're making a decision between "open borders with zero limits whatsoever and everyone enjoys the same rights as citizens with no exceptions" and "ban immigration and deport millions of people." The Democratic party doesn't support the former and the Republican party doesn't support the latter.
The European Union does have open borders within the European Union. The idea was that if people could move freely between European countries without fussing with paperwork, it would make commerce and tourism more efficient and be good for the economy overall. Individual countries would limit who could enter them from outside the European Union, but anyone from the EU could enter without trouble.
That's why we had Brexit. Germany was bringing in Syrian refugees on its own elective and people in the UK were opposed to it because if the Syrians were allowed to enter Germany, they could then enter the UK freely. Leaving the European Union meant that the UK could limit the influx of refugees from other European countries who wanted to move to the UK.
I don't agree with Brexit--it seems like a solution in want of a problem--but that was the basic idea. Leaving the EU allowed the UK to have effectively stricter limits on immigration.