Someone pls explain why Democrats don't want ICE contacted if illegal aliens attempt to buy guns

[osaka35]

Why would someone want ICE dissolved? because it's super weird to combine immigration issues with a completely separate criminal enforcement agency. Incredibly aggressive criminal enforcement. Why treat someone who has overstayed their visa with a dedicated police agency? It's pretty dang telling. even ICE officials say they want it broken up, though mainly because they want them under separate banners so local law enforcement will actually cooperate with non-immigration stuff.

Did you or did you not read the original text? I have. And I'm talking about the *original* text, not the amended proposal that mysteriously replaced it once everyone started to make fun of her. It only took hours before it was taken down amids ridicule, damn those cows and their methane-rich farts!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-case-of-aocs-scrubbed-green-new-deal-details

Did you read the article? It doesn't support your position.

After reading the article, seems like you're talking either about an FAQ on her website, and it was probably a typo by an assistant or something like that, or an early draft with typos and incomplete ideas. "original text" meaning "incomplete draft"? Not sure why that's your biggest sticking point. Though I suppose some early draft being misrepresented as the final document (where I'm assuming someone eventually corrected the zero/net zero before a final version) is what trump was talking about. Why am I not surprised. I mean, considering the intent of the document, it'd be silly to latch onto an early draft's typos as a reason to dismiss the whole thing.

It could cost 50, it's still a drop in the bucket of the overall budget. Walls work. The evidence is overwhelming. When Hungary erected its border wall, illegal crossings have decreased by *99%* over the course of two years, from 391,000 in 2015 to 1, 184 in 2017. The same results can be seen in many other countries that have chosen to erect physical barriers on their borders.

Like the wall between east berlin and west berlin? I mean, it did keep people out I suppose. Peace Lines in Northern Ireland is an interesting situation as well, kind of supports your position but kind of doesn't. The question is, how many people cross that aren't crossing at border crossings or airplane or whatnot? I was under the impression most try and cross legally and then just stay. I know airplanes are the much preferred method for many of the contraband.

The effectiveness of walls so far from what I can see is "they stop going where the walls is going...they just find a way around them somewhere else". I'm guessing soon as you build a wall, folks will blow holes or dig underneath or the like. If it's patrolled less or the same as now, it could take a long time to find holes, as well as repair them. Not sure if the cost to benefit ratio is really there to support it. And there's always the ethical issues it brings up.

 

[Foxi4]

Why would someone want ICE dissolved? because it's super weird to combine immigration issues with a completely separate criminal enforcement agency. Incredibly aggressive criminal enforcement. Why treat someone who has overstayed their visa with a dedicated police agency? It's pretty dang telling. even ICE officials say they want it broken up, though mainly because they want them under separate banners so local law enforcement will actually cooperate with non-immigration stuff.



Did you read the article? It doesn't support your position.

After reading the article, seems like you're talking either about an FAQ on her website, and it was probably a typo by an assistant or something like that, or an early draft with typos and incomplete ideas. "original text" meaning "incomplete draft"? Not sure why that's your biggest sticking point. Though I suppose some early draft being misrepresented as the final document (where I'm assuming someone eventually corrected the zero/net zero before a final version) is what trump was talking about. Why am I not surprised. I mean, considering the intent of the document, it'd be silly to latch onto an early draft's typos as a reason to dismiss the whole thing.

It was a complete document that was too stupid to exist, so it was pulled down to be touched up by people who actually know what they're talking about before being reuploaded. You can mischaracterise it all you want, the GND is a ridiculous proposal that's untenable and stupid in equal measure.

Like the wall between east berlin and west berlin? I mean, it did keep people out I suppose. Peace Lines in Northern Ireland is an interesting situation as well, kind of supports your position but kind of doesn't. The question is, how many people cross that aren't crossing at border crossings or airplane or whatnot? I was under the impression most try and cross legally and then just stay. I know airplanes are the much preferred method for many of the contraband.

The effectiveness of walls so far from what I can see is "they stop going where the walls is going...they just find a way around them somewhere else". I'm guessing soon as you build a wall, folks will blow holes or dig underneath or the like. If it's patrolled less or the same as now, it could take a long time to find holes, as well as repair them. Not sure if the cost to benefit ratio is really there to support it. And there's always the ethical issues it brings up.

You say it like it's a joke, but the Iron Curtain served its primary purpose and the Berlin Wall effectively separated the prosperous capitalist side of Germany from the empoverished communist side. The division is visible *to this day*, I know this because it used to be metaphorically at my own doorstep, I've been to the area a number of times and you can tell the difference. It's an enormous testament that the wall, which be it rightly or wrongly, effectively separated the two sides. Do I approve of dividing a nation? Perhaps if the idea was to wall off California, but as a general principle, no. Did the wall work? 100%.

"As soon as you build a wall people will do X" neglects all the boots on the ground and technology that goes into patrolling a border *in addition to* a physical barrier. You people are acting as if you've never heard of a radar, or a drone, or even something as standard-issue as a seismograph. Y'know how we know there are tunnels at the border? Because we can detect them being dug, to a great degree of accuracy. Moreover, a wall doesn't just go up, it goes deep under the ground as well, making digging under it impractical. As a physical barrier it not only prevents climbers, it primarily stops vehicles which are much harder to deal with. Every single naysayer will simultaneously disparage an obvious solution like a wall while happily clapping when AOC says "you do it better then, until you do, I'm the boss". Don't like the wall? Do it better then, until then the wall is the solution on the table.

As for your ethical dilemma, here's a better one - 8 out of 10 female illegal immigrants are raped in the process of illegally crossing the border, either by the people trafficking them or by their fellow compatriots. Sex trafficking of women *and* children is commonplace, the promise of crossing the border is often times just a kidnapping in disguise. Where is that in your calculus?

 

[osaka35]

It was a complete document that was too stupid to exist, so it was pulled down to be touched up by people who actually know what they're talking about before being reuploaded. You can mischaracterise it all you want, the GND is a ridiculous proposal that's untenable and stupid in equal measure.
You say it like it's a joke, but the Iron Curtain served its primary purpose and the Berlin Wall effectively separated the prosperous capitalist side of Germany from the empoverished communist side. The division is visible *to this day*, I know this because it used to be metaphorically at my own doorstep, I've been to the area a number of times and you can tell the difference. It's an enormous testament that the wall, be it rightly or wrongly, effectively separated the two sides. Do I approve of dividing a nation? Perhaps if the idea was to wall off California, but as a general principle, no. Did the wall work? 100%. "As soon as you build a wall people will do X" neglects all the boots on the ground and technology that goes into patrolling a border *in addition to* a physical border. You people are acting as if you've never heard of a radar, or a drone, or even something as standard-issue as a seismograph. Y'know how we know there are tunnels at the border? Because we can detect them being dug, to a great degree of accuracy. Moreover, a wall doesn't just go up, it goes deep under the ground as well, making digging under it impractical. As a physical barrier it not only prevents climbers, it primarily stops vehicles which are much harder to deal with. Every single naysayer will simultaneously disparage an obvious solution like a wall while happily clapping when AOC says "you do it better then, until you do, I'm the boss". Don't like the wall? Do it better then, until then the wall is the solution on the table.

did the article you posted mischaracterize it as well? You should read the presented version, rather than any rough draft (altered or otherwise). It's a good goal, worthy of at least being read and understood. discussing individual aspects is needed, i'm sure, but the goals should at least be agreeable to everyone. I'm not sure how they couldn't be. We're talking about long-term, human race scope ideals.

I don't understand. You're saying we currently know where all tunnels are being dug along the border? in real-time?

There are better solutions than a wall, they're just more complicated and focus on the issues caused by current policy. I'm also still curious about the amount of folks crossing at border crossings/planes rather than where there is no checkpoints. Pretty sure I did mention the border patrol, though.

The point is, what are you thinking will be accomplished? Keep people from crossing into the united states without consent? why? what will be the results of this? What tangible benefits will there be, and why do you think a wall will accomplish that?

 

[Foxi4]

did the article you posted mischaracterize it as well? You should read the presented version, rather than any rough draft (altered or otherwise). It's a good goal, worthy of at least being read and understood. discussing individual aspects is needed, i'm sure, but the goals should at least be agreeable to everyone. I'm not sure how they couldn't be. We're talking about long-term, human race scope ideals.

I don't understand. You're saying we currently know where all tunnels are being dug along the border? in real-time?

There are better solutions than a wall, they're just more complicated and focus on the issues caused by current policy. I'm also still curious about the amount of folks crossing at border crossings/planes rather than where there is no checkpoints. Pretty sure I did mention the border patrol, though.

The point is, what are you thinking will be accomplished? Keep people from crossing into the united states without consent? why? what will be the results of this? What tangible benefits will there be, and why do you think a wall will accomplish that?

We've already discussed the negative impact of illegal immigration from a variety of angles - it affects on employment and puts legal citizens at a disadvantage on the job market, particularly in the low-skilled sector, it depreciates wages, it's a humanitarian issue due to the hardships involved in crossing the border in the first place, it creates a caste of sub-citizens who are not afforded equal protection under the law nor any access to the multitude of state services, particularly Social Security, it contributes to criminal activity in border town as the immigrants are unvetted, the list just goes on and on. You have a legal immigration system - if you think it's too lengthy and convoluted, I wholeheartedly agree that it should be addressed, but you can't just pretend that illegally crossing the border is a non-issue, it's a crime. Either you have a border and enforce it or you don't have a border at all. If you think in earnest that everyone is welcome and nothing should be done about illegal immigrants operating illegally in the country, leave your front door open. Something tells me that if you had some squatters in the attic, you would call the police to have them removed from your property - this is no different, it's just the scale that's larger. I also outright reject the notion that "the wall is bad because there are better solutions" - first of all, walls work which has been proven conclusively across many very different nations, secondly the "better solutions" are not materialising, so you're just spinning and deflecting. The Democrats themselves were calling for a physical boundary at the border until 5 minutes ago when Trump suggested one, at which point it became an unpopular position - all of this nonsense has nothing to do with immigration and everything to do with underhanded politics and the party line.

As for the article posted, it describes a document that was hosted on *her* website, read it again. Quote for context.

By the afternoon of Feb. 7, Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., removed the document from her website without explanation but following backlash and even ridicule over the radical plans outlined within it, including a call to "eliminate emissions from cows or air travel" — which would functionally ban the latter — and to provide “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”

Evil GOP goblins made her and her staff write a bunch of nonsense that had to be scrapped ASAP, for sure.

 

[osaka35]

We've already discussed the negative impact of illegal immigration from a variety of angles - it has a negative impact on employment and puts legal citizens at a disadvantage on the job market, particularly in the low-skilled sector, it depreciates wages, it's a humanitarian issue due to the hardships involved in crossing the border in the first place, it creates a caste of sub-citizens who are not afforded equal protection under the law nor any access to the multitude of state services, particularly Social Security, it contributes to criminal activity in border town as the immigrants are unvetted, the list just goes on and on. You have a legal immigration system - if you think it's too lengthy and convoluted, I wholeheartedly agree that it should be addressed, but you can't just pretend that illegally crossing the border is a non-issue, it's a crime. Either you have a border and enforce it or you don't have a border at all. If you think in earnest that everyone is welcome and nothing should be done about illegal immigrants operating illegally in the country, leave your front door open. Something tells me that if you had some squatters in the attic, you would call the police to have them removed from your property - this is no different, it's just the scale that's larger.

Which goes back to how many folks cross legally vs how many cross illegally. In 2016, there were a total of 739,478 overstays, compared to 563,204 illegal border crossings, though it's hard to get precise numbers. From what I'm reading, the majority of folks just overstay their visa. Is a wall preferable because it's easier to understand and implement? Since undocumented folks have been going down since before trump, why are wanting to build it now?

 

[Foxi4]

Which goes back to how many folks cross legally vs how many cross illegally. From what I'm reading, the majority of folks just overstay their visa. Is a wall preferable because it's easier to understand and implement? Since undocumented folks have been going down since before trump, why are wanting to build it now?

People who overstay visas are a separate and much less pressing issue.

 

[osaka35]

People who overstay visas are a separate and much less pressing issue.

why less pressing? I'd imagine making immigration a process that wasn't a nightmare of a near-impossibility would help far more than a wall and would address both problems. Why not find the solution that solves both problems rather than just one or the other? And wouldn't putting up a wall make overstay visas even worse of a problem?

 

[Foxi4]

why less pressing? I'd imagine making immigration a process that wasn't a nightmare of a near-impossibility would help far more than a wall and would address both problems. Why not find the solution that solves both problems rather than just one or the other? And wouldn't putting up a wall make overstay visas even worse of a problem?

People who overstay their visas are vetted and could have very well forgotten the expiry date of their visa, they're less of an unknown quantity compared to illegal immigrants who cross the border illegally, thus becoming de facto criminals day one.

 

[osaka35]

People who overstay their visas are vetted and could have very well forgotten the expiry date of their visa, they're less of an unknown quantity compared to illegal immigrants who cross the border illegally, thus becoming de facto criminals day one.

so what you're saying is...ICE isn't needed? :3 teasing, but I don't disagree. As a general rule of thumb, if you give people a legal way to do things, they prefer doing that. If you want people to do things legally, give them a real way of doing it. I'd much rather see that solution than a wall which most likely won't do what folks pushing for it will hope it does. I can't think it'd be as expensive as a solution, either. Plus makes the USA less of a wanker.

 

[SG854]

Why would someone want ICE dissolved? because it's super weird to combine immigration issues with a completely separate criminal enforcement agency. Incredibly aggressive criminal enforcement. Why treat someone who has overstayed their visa with a dedicated police agency? It's pretty dang telling. even ICE officials say they want it broken up, though mainly because they want them under separate banners so local law enforcement will actually cooperate with non-immigration stuff.



Did you read the article? It doesn't support your position.

After reading the article, seems like you're talking either about an FAQ on her website, and it was probably a typo by an assistant or something like that, or an early draft with typos and incomplete ideas. "original text" meaning "incomplete draft"? Not sure why that's your biggest sticking point. Though I suppose some early draft being misrepresented as the final document (where I'm assuming someone eventually corrected the zero/net zero before a final version) is what trump was talking about. Why am I not surprised. I mean, considering the intent of the document, it'd be silly to latch onto an early draft's typos as a reason to dismiss the whole thing.


Like the wall between east berlin and west berlin? I mean, it did keep people out I suppose. Peace Lines in Northern Ireland is an interesting situation as well, kind of supports your position but kind of doesn't. The question is, how many people cross that aren't crossing at border crossings or airplane or whatnot? I was under the impression most try and cross legally and then just stay. I know airplanes are the much preferred method for many of the contraband.

The effectiveness of walls so far from what I can see is "they stop going where the walls is going...they just find a way around them somewhere else". I'm guessing soon as you build a wall, folks will blow holes or dig underneath or the like. If it's patrolled less or the same as now, it could take a long time to find holes, as well as repair them. Not sure if the cost to benefit ratio is really there to support it. And there's always the ethical issues it brings up.

It was definitely not mischaracterized. And not erreneuous information.

Original faq sheet had things that they supposedly claim people are mischaracterizing, removed it, then said original faq was a mistake even though Cortez’s office told News orginizations to report it so it wasn’t in just the original FAQ, then they started gas lighting. So exactly what was erroneous about the faq sheet, if the office told reporters what to report.

They were simply back pedaling and trying to downlplay how stupid the GND was. It was straight up communism. It talked about things that didn’t have anything to do with environmentalism like racial disparities.

The final resolution is still close to the original pulled document.

why less pressing? I'd imagine making immigration a process that wasn't a nightmare of a near-impossibility would help far more than a wall and would address both problems. Why not find the solution that solves both problems rather than just one or the other? And wouldn't putting up a wall make overstay visas even worse of a problem?

People that overstay visa is a problem previous president failed to address. Why not do both? Why not have a wall with security and a way to enforce laws with people that over stay with visa’s. We don’t only have to do one thing.

 

[Foxi4]

so what you're saying is...ICE isn't needed? :3 teasing, but I don't disagree. As a general rule of thumb, if you give people a legal way to do things, they prefer doing that. If you want people to do things legally, give them a real way of doing it. I'd much rather see that solution than a wall which most likely won't do what folks pushing for it will hope it does. I can't think it'd be as expensive as a solution, either. Plus makes the USA less of a wanker.

You can do both, but I don't disagree. You must have a secure border and means to legally enter the country. As Trump said it, "a big, big wall with many big gates in it to welcome people in", metaphorically speaking. Other than that, zero tolerance.

 

[osaka35]

It was definitely not mischaracterized. And not erreneuous information.

Original faq sheet had things that they supposedly claim people are mischaracterizing, removed it, then said original faq was a mistake even though Cortez’s office told News orginizations to report it so it wasn’t in just the original FAQ, then they started gas lighting. So exactly what was erroneous about the faq sheet, if the office told reporters what to report.

They were simply back pedaling and trying to downlplay how stupid the GND was. It was straight up communism. It talked about things that didn’t have anything to do with environmentalism like racial disparities.

The final resolution is still close to the original pulled document.


People that overstay visa is a problem previous president failed to address. Why not do both? Why not have a wall with security and a way to enforce laws with people that over stay with visa’s. We don’t only have to do one thing.

Because when the left is more concerned about budgets and responsible spending than the right, something had gone terribly wrong. Why spend money on two things when one will do? I'd rather spend wisely than waste money. Return On Investment, if you will.

And think of it as an economic platform for humanity, where green energy is needed as we're eventually going to run out of other fuels. It sounds like you have some ideological hangups preventing you from seeing the real-world impacts this plan would have. I personally don't like aspects of it, like it needs new nuclear as part of the plan, but the plan can be adjusted. It seems fairly straight forward and logical to me, but I deal with this sort of stuff frequently.

 

[SG854]

Because when the left is more concerned about budgets and responsible spending than the right, something had gone terribly wrong. Why spend money on two things when one will do? I'd rather spend wisely than waste money. Return On Investment, if you will.

And think of it as an economic platform for humanity, where green energy is needed as we're eventually going to run out of other fuels. It sounds like you have some ideological hangups preventing you from seeing the real-world impacts this plan would have. I personally don't like aspects of it, like it needs new nuclear as part of the plan, but the plan can be adjusted. It seems fairly straight forward and logical to me, but I deal with this sort of stuff frequently.

Will it though? Do you know actually how much it will cost to do both? I heared reports that it’ll save money, which we can use to do both, then having illegals stay in the country which are costing use millions.




I’m for a GND. Just not the one Cortez is proposing because it’s unrealistic and she is using environmentalism to push for a borderline communist agenda.

She is just listing things to do without any plan. That’s not helpful at all. Plenty of people have been doing that for years, so what different with this GND? We need to cut back on this and that. Okay, how? Give us a reasonable plan, a goal to work towards. Don’t just throw things in the air.

 

[osaka35]

Will it though? Do you know actually how much it will cost to do both? I heared reports that it’ll save money, which we can use to do both, then having illegals stay in the country which are costing use millions.




I’m for a GND. Just not the one Cortez is proposing because it’s unrealistic and she is using environmentalism to push for a borderline communist agenda.

She is just listing things to do without any plan. That’s not helpful at all. Plenty of people have been doing that for years, so what different with this GND? We need to cut back on this and that. Okay, how? Give us a reasonable plan, a goal to work towards. Don’t just throw things in the air.

I haven't seen any report that it would save money. Why not do the cheaper, more policy-related thing, and then figure out the financials of the wall? Less people have been crossing than previously, and it'd probably be quicker to change policy than build a wall.

I mean, it is a resolution, not a plan. The plan comes after it's agreed we need a plan to address the issues. Think of it as a "these are the goals we need to achieve" rather than a "here's a plan to accomplish these goals". The second comes after we can agree to the first. Which we're having a hard time agreeing on, it would seem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/

so the "no airplanes" bit was about how we would fund technology that would replace the need for airplanes, it would seem. Not sure how feasible that is, but I'm all down for smarter tech. The FAQs looks to have been silly in parts, but doesn't reflect the resolution.

 

[SG854]

I haven't seen any report that it would save money. Why not do the cheaper, more policy-related thing, and then figure out the financials of the wall? Less people have been crossing than previously, and it'd probably be quicker to change policy than build a wall.

I mean, it is a resolution, not a plan. The plan comes after it's agreed we need a plan to address the issues. Think of it as a "these are the goals we need to achieve" rather than a "here's a plan to accomplish these goals". The second comes after we can agree to the first. Which we're having a hard time agreeing on, it would seem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/11/whats-actually-green-new-deal-democrats/

so the "no airplanes" bit was about how we would fund technology that would replace the need for airplanes, it would seem. Not sure how feasible that is, but I'm all down for smarter tech. The FAQs looks to have been silly in parts, but doesn't reflect the resolution.

I’ll get back to you on the border topic. But the GND a bit ridiculous? No the socialism in it is flat out ridiculous.

It’s a very basic list, it doesn’t even go into detail how it affects the environment. It basically just says emissions bad need change.. You won’t do any convincing and getting people to agree with just a basic list.

And is that all we’re doing? Agreeing that Climate Change is a thing and need fix to it. That’s it? That’s the point of the GND. What’s even the point of the resolution.

Why not just go straight to a plan? The FDR New Deal had a plan which is what the GND is based on. Is the purpose of the GND to put Cortez in charge of a plan. Is that why it exists? If her solutions suck, and someone else has a better plan, is it too bad because we picked her lead things. What’s even the point of this Green New Deal. Give solutions. No more of this resolution, they been giving goals and no plan for over 10 yrs. Give a plan, no more goals.

 

[Xzi]

Your statement is obviously false and subject to a simple test - if you think the task is worth more than you are offered, go do it somewhere else for the value you think it's worth. If you can't find anyone offering that value, newsflash, it isn't worth as much as you think it is.

I don't expect anyone to pay the total profit they're making off your labor, that would leave the company with net zero. Again though that doesn't mean there isn't wiggle room between what you are getting paid and what they could be paying you in most positions. That's why you can work somewhere for a few years, leave, and go work that same position somewhere else for higher pay. The profitability of that position didn't go up during those years, so that's acknowledgment right there that you could've been getting paid more all along.

We'll have to agree to disagree on all three points.

Yeah we might as well call it there. Our political ideologies are about as polar opposite as it gets, libertarian versus social democrat, so we're not going to agree on most things.

Why not just go straight to a plan? The FDR New Deal had a plan which is what the GND is based on.

Because Republicans have the Senate and the executive branch. There's no point in unveiling a plan that has no chance of becoming reality. Might as well wait until the Democrats are actually in a position to move on it.

 

[Taleweaver]

Hi guys,

I haven't kept up with this discussion, and I don't really want to interfere. But based on this recent thread that's also about ICE, I want to change my previous opinion (this one:

Spoiler

ERm...8 pages in 24 hours? Wow...

I tried reading some, but it was as I predicted. The moment you make a thread with an accusation, the discussion doesn't revolve around the issue but around personal ideologies.

Here's my answer: I don't have a fucking clue. And thanks to the nature of this thread, I only accidentally stumbled upon the meaning of "ICE" (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, right? ).


If it was up to me: sure. Go ahead. Glad to see fox news pushing for stricter gun laws for a change.

So while we're at it: how about we extend it to "inform ICE whenever ANYONE buys a gun...and have the potential gun owner deported out of the country." ? I know it's pretty radical, but you can bet that it'll seriously decrease gun violence in the US.

).

Do I believe the allegations made in that thread? As harsh as it sounds...I'm going with "that's only accidentally relevant here". At the very least, that thread strongly indicates a lack of follow-up on their inmates. You can bicker all that you want about whether it's the fault of democrats, republicans, the ICE, the refugees themselves, the lack of wall or anything...but the ICE is not up to properly performing the task as it is. Piling up extra tasks upon departments that are already understaffed is a bad idea. And in this specific case, 'bad' is a euphemism for 'horrible'.


It's not really a fair answer to the OP because this new info wasn't known, but that doesn't make the answer less relevant:

Why don't democrats want the ICE contacted if illegal immigrants attempt to buy guns? Because while they're doing the job of the police in addition to their own tasks, they aren't making sure their inmates don't rape each other.


...oh, and also: the cases of ICE officers allegedly raping immigrants should be properly investigated and (if needed) charged. The very last thing you want is the sort of situations like the following:
Gun store owner (on phone): hi...ICE? Can you guys come over? I have someone in my stores that doesn't have proper papers.
ICE: *sigh* not ANOTHER one! Just tell him to come back with the papers, okay? I'm tired of dealing with these clowns that don't want their names on the record.
Owner: oh, it's not a him. It's an exotic hot chick that wants to...
ICE: WE'LL BE RIGHT THERE!!!

 

[Foxi4]

Hi guys,

I haven't kept up with this discussion, and I don't really want to interfere. But based on this recent thread that's also about ICE, I want to change my previous opinion (this one:

).

Do I believe the allegations made in that thread? As harsh as it sounds...I'm going with "that's only accidentally relevant here". At the very least, that thread strongly indicates a lack of follow-up on their inmates. You can bicker all that you want about whether it's the fault of democrats, republicans, the ICE, the refugees themselves, the lack of wall or anything...but the ICE is not up to properly performing the task as it is. Piling up extra tasks upon departments that are already understaffed is a bad idea. And in this specific case, 'bad' is a euphemism for 'horrible'.


It's not really a fair answer to the OP because this new info wasn't known, but that doesn't make the answer less relevant:

Why don't democrats want the ICE contacted if illegal immigrants attempt to buy guns? Because while they're doing the job of the police in addition to their own tasks, they aren't making sure their inmates don't rape each other.


...oh, and also: the cases of ICE officers allegedly raping immigrants should be properly investigated and (if needed) charged. The very last thing you want is the sort of situations like the following:
Gun store owner (on phone): hi...ICE? Can you guys come over? I have someone in my stores that doesn't have proper papers.
ICE: *sigh* not ANOTHER one! Just tell him to come back with the papers, okay? I'm tired of dealing with these clowns that don't want their names on the record.
Owner: oh, it's not a him. It's an exotic hot chick that wants to...
ICE: WE'LL BE RIGHT THERE!!!

"Some law enforcement officers are bad apples, plus they're busy, so let's just not call them" - solid logic.

Let's go through this step by step. An illegal immigrant walks into a gun store. He or she provides false documentation and fraudulently fills in a government form, which is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison, in addition to fines. The correct response is putting that form in the shredder and pretending that didn't happen? Okay.

 

[Taleweaver]

"Some law enforcement officers are bad apples, plus they're busy, so let's just not call them" - solid logic.

No. Sorry. This won't work. I didn't read the second part of your reply because you're completely misreading what I said, drawing a wrong conclusion from it and then assuming that's what I meant. So I'm truly sorry if I explained it in a way that confused you (and perhaps others), but it's not what I said.

I'm saying that ICE has other problems to solve right now. I'm very willing to discuss the usefulness on whether or not ICE should or shouldn't be involved in illegal immigrants attempting to buy firearms, but NOT RIGHT NOW.

It's a simple matter of priorities. Making sure that corruption is within accessible limits trumps adding extra tasks. Just like "evacuating the building when it's on fire" trumps any task you and me might have while working anywhere indoors.

Does this convey my intended message better?

 

[TPMJB]

If they know they can't legally get a gun they'd likely turn to illegal means instead

I don't really care what illegal means they use, since they'll be back in their home country. Let them deal with it.