Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shoule ICE be Abolished

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    ICE dob was in 2002. We lived quite well before they showed up with DHS
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
      Fot those of you wanting to abolish ICE and open the borders to illegal immigration, I have the following questions?

      Would you be willing to have illegals living on your property uninvited? Moving into your house and cottage when you are gone? Setting up tent cities in the local park? Constantly stealing from everywhere?

      One only needs to look at the UK where the problem with gypsies was allowed to fester to the point there they had more rights then the property owner.

      http://www.communitylawpartnership.c...and-travellers
      WTF Ron...you post a link from London UK in a thread about the US and ICE.
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
        Yes, it should be called Border Patrol, and not these Made UP names for whatever reasons, A Horse is a Horse!
        ICE was probably made up name by the Morons of Obamas Cabinet.
        Blind...ICE came in with DoHS under Bush in 2002.
        "Ask not what your country can do for you"

        Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

        you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Darth Holliday View Post
          For every South American, Central American and Mexican caught making illegal entry, deduct 100 grand from that's country's aid they receive from the US...In addition, place a 25% tariff on ALL money transfers from Western Union to those country's along with PayPal....
          Transfer all funds through a third country.
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by pamak View Post

            Lawyers are notorious for spinning the facts to fit their agenda. Plus, I am not sure if he is a lawyer or just a bondsman. I would expect from a lawyer to understand the difference between a Class A misdemeanor, such as a typical DUI (according to his words) and a Class D or E offense which is equivalent to the illegal entrance instead of making arguments trying to compare how authorities react to these two types of offenses...

            And something else: The sources I provide are much more credible than the words of an unknown poster in internet who claims that he is an expert. Not to mention, that even a real expert, cannot claim such expertise when we have different state laws and requirements in different states regarding how to handle arrests for minor misdemeanors.


            Your "sources" are newspaper articles written by people who do not understand the process, they are writing what they are told. And you don't understand what they are talking about.
            Nevertheless, as I have said, my sources are found in Illinois statutes.
            I'm not sure why you seem to think that other forms of misdemeanors are relevant when discussing a class A misdemeanor. Unless you are trying to either change the subject again, or pretend you know what you are talking about.
            In any event, you aren't going to understand the following, but I will post it anyway.
            These are from the Illinois Compiled Statutes (ILCS)
            (725 ILCS 5/109-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 109-1)
            Sec. 109-1. Person arrested.
            (a) A person arrested with or without a warrant shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest and most accessible judge in that county,......

            (b) The judge shall:
            (4) Admit the defendant to bail in accordance with
            the provisions of Article 110 of this Code; and
            (That means set bail)
            A person arrested for DUI is subject to the above provision regardless of what you think your newspaper article says. My source is the one that controls.

            Further down in this section is another interesting provision and it is going to pain you to read it so please get ready. You will remember that I said DCFS takes the kids when a parent is arrested and there is no one else to care for the kid?
            (725 ILCS 5/109‑1.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 109‑1.1)
            Sec. 109‑1.1. (1) Whenever a person arrested either with or without a warrant is taken before a judge as provided for in Sections 107‑9(d) (6) and 109‑1(a), the judge shall ask the arrestee whether he or she has any children under 18 years old living with him or her who may be neglected as a result of the arrest, incarceration or otherwise. If the judge has reasonable cause to believe that a child may be a neglected child as defined in the Abused and Neglected Child Care Reporting Act, he shall instruct a probation officer to report it immediately to the Department of Children and Family Services as provided in that Act.

            And I think AJR has a valid point about the ignore function. You spend far too much time following me around trying to expose errors in my posts. Your obsession with this is tiring.
            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by pamak View Post
              and it get even better...

              After farther research, I find the following regarding our expert's state.

              From

              http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...609-story.html



              Bold mine

              and here is a link with the actual law

              http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/100/...00SB2034lv.pdf

              Page 10



              Bold mine...

              Apparently, Cambronnne was not aware of this law or decided on purpose to hide this information in order to support his false analogy when he compared the treatment poor illegal immigrants receive from the authorities for the minor misdemeanor of illegal entrance to the treatment US civilians receive in his state when they cannot post bail. Other than that, he is an "expert," like soooooo many others in internet!
              The bail reform act does not remove the setting of bail.
              If you read what you linked rather than rely on the newspaper article you would have seen the following section:

              (4) Admit the defendant to bail in accordance with the provisions of Article 110 of this Code; and

              The same language I provided and proof of the law's requirement for the setting of bail.

              Under the bail reform act, certain offenses will allow people to be released even if they do not pay the cash bail.
              A hearing will be conducted at the bond hearing. The defendant will often be provided with a public defender for purposes of this hearing even if they aren't indigent.
              The attorneys will argue the issue of bail. If the defense wins, the Court still sets a bail amount, but the defendant will be released on his own recognizance.
              If he violates the other terms of his bail, he will be returned to custody and required to post the cash bail.

              If you understood what the law you posted said, you would not have used it in support of your claim that bail isn't required for DUI, because that is not what it says.
              But thank you for proving my point again.
              Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

              Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post

                WTF Ron...you post a link from London UK in a thread about the US and ICE.

                Can't you see the problems that will occur with illegals in the US from the example of what has happened in the UK if border laws are no longer enforced and the far left give them more rights then those of the property owners?

                Or,

                Are you in favor of illegals being allowed to break immigration laws and taking private property away from the property owner?

                Either immigration laws are enforced or this country turns into a third world nation like Central America where most of these illegals are coming from.
                “Breaking News,”

                “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                Comment


                • #53
                  Finally, as you will recall, my statement on DUI was limited to those who cannot make bail.
                  You have ignored this qualification and tried to claim that Class A misdemeanors don't require bail.
                  You are wrong, but that is not important to my final point.

                  A person arrested "with a warrant" frequently has bail set at the time the warrant is issued.
                  A person arrested for DUI is usually arrested "without a warrant" as the knowledge of the crime doesn't occur until the time of the traffic stop.
                  Now, if that driver is arrested for DUI at 1 am and there is a kid in the car, the defendant is separated from that child.
                  And the child will remain separated from the defendant until he has met bail or had a bond setting hearing and been released.
                  An arrest on Saturday night means the separation will last until Monday morning when the next bond hearing will take place.

                  In those circumstances DCFS will become involved if there is no one else to take the child.
                  Now, please tell me more about the system you don't understand or know anything about.
                  Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                  Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post


                    Can't you see the problems that will occur with illegals in the US from the example of what has happened in the UK if border laws are no longer enforced and the far left give them more rights then those of the property owners?

                    Or,

                    Are you in favor of illegals being allowed to break immigration laws and taking private property away from the property owner?

                    Either immigration laws are enforced or this country turns into a third world nation like Central America where most of these illegals are coming from.
                    Ron, those in the UK are mostly, from your report, are bands of gypsies who have been doing the same thing across Europe for hundreds of years. The have taken over ZERO countries.

                    I'm for illegals to be treated as humans and in front of the law to face the same punishment as residence, NO more and no less harsh.
                    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      That is correct. We ran into some of them in Paris last summer. They have to be sent on their way when they approach people on the street, usually teenagers and young adults. I had a run-in with some of them. They weren't too happy when I spoke roughly to them. But they then left the area and the kids.
                      We are not now that strength which in old days
                      Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                      Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                      To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

                        The bail reform act does not remove the setting of bail.
                        If you read what you linked rather than rely on the newspaper article you would have seen the following section:

                        (4) Admit the defendant to bail in accordance with the provisions of Article 110 of this Code; and

                        The same language I provided and proof of the law's requirement for the setting of bail.

                        Under the bail reform act, certain offenses will allow people to be released even if they do not pay the cash bail.
                        A hearing will be conducted at the bond hearing. The defendant will often be provided with a public defender for purposes of this hearing even if they aren't indigent.
                        The attorneys will argue the issue of bail. If the defense wins, the Court still sets a bail amount, but the defendant will be released on his own recognizance.
                        If he violates the other terms of his bail, he will be returned to custody and required to post the cash bail.
                        If you understood what the law you posted said, you would not have used it in support of your claim that bail isn't required for DUI, because that is not what it says.
                        But thank you for proving my point again.
                        Mr "expert", you missed the most important part of your law of your state!

                        I gave the quotes, but apparently, you still have trouble to understand what they say, so I will repeat the important part you want to ignore

                        ...There shall be a presumption that any conditions of release imposed shall be non-monetary in nature and the court shall impose the least restrictive conditions...
                        Do you understand the meaning of "presumption"?

                        Because if you understand it, then there is no reasonable explanation for your attempt to try to equate the typical situation of the poor illegal immigrant who supposedly goes to jail when he does not post bail to the situation of your citizens who are PRESUMED that they do not have to pay any bail to avoid jail for non violent crimes. Such an attempt to equate things shows your fraud and your fanaticism in trying to justify partisan policies that separate kids from their parents . And notice also that my argument was never that illegal immigrants should be set free . My argument was the authorities could impose "less restrictive" conditions to keep families together, And I use the expression "less restrictive conditions" alluding to the language of the law of YOUR state that you either deliberately hid from us or that you simply did not know that it existed up until I found it.


                        Also, I said many times that the argument is not that the law prohibits bail. The argument is that it is not a typical thing to separate families for non violent crimes. And as I proved with the site from the legislative branch of your state (and not just from a newspaper), there is a law which PRESUMES that citizens with the socioeconomic background of a typical illegal immigrant do not have pay monetary bail to avoid jail for non violent crimes, and the authorities do not have to separate families in such cases! So stop creating strawman argument just because you cannot address my points of how ridiculous your comparisons are and go read the laws of your state before you claim that you are an "expert."
                        Last edited by pamak; 01 Jul 18, 04:57.
                        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          The current 'idea' to abolish ICE is Trump's doing:

                          https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ev...cid=spartandhp
                          We are not now that strength which in old days
                          Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                          Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                          To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The real question is: What will replace it to enforce immigration and custom laws, collect duties and import taxes, and the other things that the current organization does?

                            Or, are those calling for its abolition really just making an emotional, knee jerk, reaction to something that they personally dislike like a bunch of petulant children?

                            Abolishing ICE doesn't negate or eliminate the functions they carry out under federal law.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              The real question is: What will replace it to enforce immigration and custom laws, collect duties and import taxes, and the other things that the current organization does?

                              Or, are those calling for its abolition really just making an emotional, knee jerk, reaction to something that they personally dislike like a bunch of petulant children?

                              Abolishing ICE doesn't negate or eliminate the functions they carry out under federal law.
                              No, the real question is when will the policy be changed and the children returned to their parents. And the separation of children from their parents is a policy announced in early April of this year-it isn't US law.
                              We are not now that strength which in old days
                              Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                              Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                              To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I guess crime pays very well, eh?

                                In fact, I think we just should also charge these parents with reckless child endangerment for taking their children across the border illegally (a very dangerous activity) instead of going through legal channels. Mexico has 9 US consulates and an embassy in the capital city where non-US citizens can apply for refugee or asylum status. It's a lot safer and increases the odds of getting papers....legally.

                                Only now those who believe in enforcing immigration laws are now evil goons and illegal immigrants good guys.

                                The same Bible says woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
                                Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                                "Aim small, miss small."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X