Kates Law Re-Introduced

[mAlice]

[video=youtube;Rsuu6Im1pmc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsuu6Im1pmc[/video]

 

[vraiblonde]

I have never understood, nor has it been explained, why they wouldn't pass Kate's Law. O'Reilly and others have asked the antis and their answers were rigamarole BS that danced round the maypole and never addressed the question.

 

[mAlice]

I have never understood, nor has it been explained, why they wouldn't pass Kate's Law. O'Reilly and others have asked the antis and their answers were rigamarole BS that danced round the maypole and never addressed the question.

Passing Kate's Law would shine an ugly light on illegals, and the left wouldn't want to do that.

 

[SamSpade]

I have never understood, nor has it been explained, why they wouldn't pass Kate's Law. O'Reilly and others have asked the antis and their answers were rigamarole BS that danced round the maypole and never addressed the question.

The ONLY explanation I have heard that has any sense at all is a philosophical posture against mandatory sentencing.

I don't agree, but every other explanation is much stupider.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I have never understood, nor has it been explained, why they wouldn't pass Kate's Law. O'Reilly and others have asked the antis and their answers were rigamarole BS that danced round the maypole and never addressed the question.

I think it should be compared to gun laws. Whenever some jagoff shoots and kills someone we hear the gun control war cry from the left. The right tends to recognize, then anyway, that the chance of preventing an unpredictable crime, however unlikely, is not a good enough excuse to use government resources to restrict people’s lives.

What happened to Kate was horrible, but if one looks at the actual numbers will see that sanctuary cities like San Francisco (where the shooting happened) actually have a lower murder rate than non-sanctuary cities and there's no correlation between an uptick in immigration and an increase in crime. We know this because between 1990 and 2013, foreign-born percentage of the US population grew from 7.9% to 13.1% with the number of illegals jumping from 3.5 million to 11.2 million, respectively. Yet during that same time frame, violent crime rates (including assault, robbery, rape, and murder) fell 48% and property crime (including car theft, larceny, and burglary) rates fell 41%.

If it were true that these cities with more immigrants are more dangerous, how come El Paso, TX has the lowest murder rate of any city over 500,000 people while it sits across the Rio Grande from Mexico?
http://www.urban.org/urban-wire/learning-about-crime-decline-big-city-experiences-homicide

Academic study of immigrants that is limited to gangs and crime can serve only to promote the impression that immigrants are a crime-prone group—an image that the empirical research of the past 100 years does not support. In sum, this review suggests that native groups would profit from a better understanding
of how immigrant groups faced with adverse social conditions maintain relatively low levels of crime.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_1/02j.pdf

“There’s essentially no correlation between immigrants and violent crime,” he asserts. Given some media depictions of immigrants as violent, or associated with human trafficking and the drug trade, this finding may come as a surprise to many, says Spenkuch. “There’s a long perception that immigration increases crime, and when you look at neighborhoods where lots of immigrants live, these are typically not the best neighborhoods. These are violent places. So there’s this anecdotal association [between immigrants and violent crime] that just doesn’t turn out to be true in the data.”

https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/does_immigration_increase_crime

...increases in immigration and language diversity over the decade of the 1990s predicted decreases in neighborhood homicide rates in the late '90s and up to 2006.

https://contexts.org/articles/files/2008/01/contexts_winter08_sampson.pdf

Both the Census-data driven studies and macro-level studies find that immigrants are less crime-prone than natives with some small potential exceptions. There are numerous reasons why immigrant criminality is lower than native criminality. One explanation is that immigrants who commit crimes can be deported and thus are punished more for criminal behavior, making them less likely to break the law.

https://www.cato.org/blog/immigration-crime-what-research-says

As you probably know, Obama has deported TONS of illegal immigrants using the following logic:

Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we’re also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable -– especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent. And that’s why we’re going to keep focusing enforcement resources on actual threats to our security. Felons, not families. Criminals, not children. Gang members, not a mom who’s working hard to provide for her kids. We’ll prioritize, just like law enforcement does every day.

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...t-immigration-accountability-executive-action

Syracuse University has this program called the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) which collects and analyzes immigration data. Almost 3 years ago they published a report on 2.3 million deportations by ICE between 2008 and 2013. they found that Obama's number is correct, but inflated.

ICE currently uses an exceedingly broad definition of criminal behavior: even very minor infractions are included. For example, anyone with a traffic ticket for exceeding the speed limit on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway who sends in their check to pay their fine has just entered ICE’s “convicted criminal” category. If the same definitions were applied to every citizen — rather than just to noncitizens — available evidence (see TRAC’s February 2012 report) suggests that the majority of U.S. citizens would be considered convicted criminals.

The report also found that the 87% percent increase in deportations of "convicted criminals" actually stemmed from traffic violations, up 191% and immigration offenses, up 167%. At the same time, deportations for violent crimes fell.

For example, the number of deportees convicted of vehicle theft was down by 27 percent. Robbery, burglary and forgery categories saw only a small increase — up 4 to 6 percent over this six year period. Although their numbers were small, declines also occurred for individuals convicted of arson (down 1 percent), embezzlement (down 14 percent) and bribery (down 41 percent).

In fact, only 12% of the deportations in 2013 were Level 1 (ICE's own definition of violent crimes like homicide, kidnapping, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, among others) crimes.
http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/349/

What's happening is the right is using Kate's tragedy to drum up this nativist sentiment across the country against a group of people who, for the most part, are law abiding people looking for a better life. Now I'm sure someone will chime in and say that simply being here illegally is committing a crime. That's a valid argument, but it comes down to your personal belief that the law is more important than liberty. Trump supporters also like to tout the idea that they are no influenced by the media and the media lies, while at the same time using that same media to back up this proposal. The same media that likes to paint these people as criminals when the evidence simply doesn't support that assertion.

 

[SamSpade]

What happened to Kate was horrible, but if one looks at the actual numbers will see that sanctuary cities

Irrelevant, since it never should have happened at all. This man should not have been here - and he should have been locked up.
Several times. Try to imagine a pit bull attacking neighbors without being contained on his property - and then kills someone - and gets away with it.

If it were true that these cities with more immigrants are more dangerous, how come El Paso, TX has the lowest murder rate of any city over 500,000 people while it sits across the Rio Grande from Mexico?

Lies, damned lies etc (sorry, just quoting the phrase, nothing personal). Border cities have a MUCH GREATER law enforcement presence than others. Comparisons don't always work.
Secondly - I don't think anyone is trying to say that immigrant status contributes to crime, but illegal immigrants who COMMIT crime should not be able to dodge the law.

 

[GURPS]

What's happening is the right is using Kate's tragedy to drum up this nativist sentiment across the country against a group of people who, for the most part, are law abiding people looking for a better life.

Too Bad .... get in line with everyone else

Now I'm sure someone will chime in and say that simply being here illegally is committing a crime. That's a valid argument, but it comes down to your personal belief that the law is more important than liberty.

they don't belong here .... no one bitches how other countries handle their borders, try staying in Mexico illegally, why does America have to have the open ####ing door

 

[vraiblonde]

I think it should be compared to gun laws. Whenever some jagoff shoots and kills someone we hear the gun control war cry from the left. The right tends to recognize, then anyway, that the chance of preventing an unpredictable crime, however unlikely, is not a good enough excuse to use government resources to restrict people’s lives.

First paragraph and you can stop right there because anything after is working off a faulty premise.

The text of H. R. 3011 (Kate's Law):

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3011/text

Short title:
Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015

Summary:

"This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase penalties applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after being removed."

This law affects someone AFTER they have been deported. It has nothing whatsoever to do with law abiding immigrants, not even those here illegally. If you are deported, typically because you've committed a crime, and you jump the border to get back in, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence.

Now, it's possible that you didn't realize what Kate's Law actually says, which is understandable considering the enormous amount of spin and outright lying the Left and their media cohorts have been peddling. But now that you know exactly what the law says, are you prepared to change your stance?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Irrelevant, since it never should have happened at all. This man should not have been here - and he should have been locked up.
Several times. Try to imagine a pit bull attacking neighbors without being contained on his property - and then kills someone - and gets away with it.

Lies, damned lies etc (sorry, just quoting the phrase, nothing personal). Border cities have a MUCH GREATER law enforcement presence than others. Comparisons don't always work.
Secondly - I don't think anyone is trying to say that immigrant status contributes to crime, but illegal immigrants who COMMIT crime should not be able to dodge the law.

I think there's a misconception on what a Sanctuary City actually is.

Local police are relied upon by federal immigration officials, but it's completely voluntary. Police can't pull you over and ask what your immigration status is. Typically, police arrest someone for DUI, or some other offense. After being arrested, fingerprints are ran through ICE databases and if found to be illegal, ICE asks the jail top hold them for 48 hours so they can get a warrant and start the deportation proceedings. The trouble comes in, for ICE anyway, because keeping someone in jail for 48 hours without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. Hence these are voluntary detentions by local authorities and the DoJ found that in many cases, local jails won't hold inmates unless he has prior felony convictions, is a gang member, or on a terrorist watch list so if the inmate's charges are dropped, or bail is met, they're free to go. In some of these sanctuary cities, police are instructed not to ask immigration status, interpreters are offered, and in D.C.'s case, a legal defense fund was set up (which I disagree with whole-heartedly) because these deportation proceedings take place in civil, not criminal, court thus no option for a public defender.

There's obviously arguments for both sides, but one argument is that requiring local police to hold them could result in illegal immigrants afraid to ask police for help out of fear they would be deported.

The issue at hand is that Trump's plan calls to withhold federal “federal funds, except as mandated by law” and that's just too vague. Localities get federal funding from tons of different departments that have absolutely nothing to do with immigration. Is Trump mandating that DHS funds used to combat terrorism be withheld from localities? Law enforcement grants used to get police vests and helmets and other gear go away too since Trump's proposal specifically mentions a federal statue that requires recipients of those law enforcement grants to share info on inmates with the federal government with one problem, that statue doesn't address detention requests by ICE.

Typically, these federal funds make up a small portion of budgets for larger cities. NYPD's budget is $80.5 billion with fed funds being 10% of that with justice grants being 0.75% of their grant revenue.

Now, one added wrinkle is that localities that do comply with the ICE detention requests are supposed to get reimbursed by ICE, but in most cases sanctuary cities don't get much money, if any at all, for complying with ICE detainer requests so in short, denying localities immigration funds probably won't do much. Certainly not an end-all-be-all.

Trump's administration could seek a federal injunction to block these sanctuary city policies of essentially ignoring ICE.

There's also the tid bit in Trump's plan asking DHS to identify localities that don't comply and publish a “comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens” once a week. I don't know about you, but I'm willing to bet DHS will argue they don't have the manpower for that and more taxpayer money will be dumped into DHS.

As with most of Trump's ideas and plans, it's a bit more complicated than he makes it seem and doesn't exactly make sense from a legal standpoint. Not really his fault, and more on we the people not really giving a #### and giving the government more and more power while we care less and less about it, but I digress. It's just not a cut and dry as he, and most people make it seem.

 

[GURPS]

.. If you are deported, typically because you've committed a crime, and you jump the border to get back in, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence.

IMHO - buried in a shallow grave in the AZ Deseret

 

[Chris0nllyn]

First paragraph and you can stop right there because anything after is working off a faulty premise.

The text of H. R. 3011 (Kate's Law):

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3011/text

Short title:
Establishing Mandatory Minimums for Illegal Reentry Act of 2015

Summary:

"This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to increase penalties applicable to aliens who unlawfully reenter the United States after being removed."

This law affects someone AFTER they have been deported. It has nothing whatsoever to do with law abiding immigrants, not even those here illegally. If you are deported, typically because you've committed a crime, and you jump the border to get back in, there will be a mandatory minimum sentence.

Now, it's possible that you didn't realize what Kate's Law actually says, which is understandable considering the enormous amount of spin and outright lying the Left and their media cohorts have been peddling. But now that you know exactly what the law says, are you prepared to change your stance?

I'd like to know how it's built on a faulty premise. Some immigrant lunatic shoots a woman and we say "we should limit immigrants!". In the same token, some American lunatic shoots a bunch of kids and we don't say "we should limit guns!".

Here's HR 361. This year's Kate's Law. Same text, just this year's bill.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/361/text?q={"search":["Kate's+Law"]}&r=1

All it's doing is threatening to arrest immigrants for longer periods than before.

I was conflating two different things within my posts. Both Kate's Law and Trump's proposal on sanctuary cities.

Having read that, I still hold my stance as I prefer not spending taxpayer money to house an immigrant here for 6+ years rather than re-deporting them.

 

[GURPS]

I'd like to know how it's built on a faulty premise. Some immigrant lunatic shoots a woman and we say "we should limit immigrants!". In the same token, some American lunatic shoots a bunch of kids and we don't say "we should limit guns!".

stop right there ... one is blaming the shooter, the other is blaming the tool

 

[vraiblonde]

I'd like to know how it's built on a faulty premise. Some immigrant lunatic shoots a woman and we say "we should limit immigrants!".

There you go again. That's not what Kate's Law says. Not even close.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

There you go again. That's not what Kate's Law says. Not even close.

What do you think drove the creation of Kate's Law?

Hopefully you help me out here, as it may take some back and forth for us to be on the same page.

 

[Peepaw95]

Typically, police arrest someone for DUI, or some other offense. After being arrested, fingerprints are ran through ICE databases and if found to be illegal, ICE asks the jail top hold them for 48 hours so they can get a warrant and start the deportation proceedings. The trouble comes in, for ICE anyway, because keeping someone in jail for 48 hours without a warrant violates the 4th Amendment. .

My question is, and I really do not know, does the 4th Amendment apply to illegal aliens? I thought it was for American citizens.

 

[vraiblonde]

What do you think drove the creation of Kate's Law?

Hopefully you help me out here, as it may take some back and forth for us to be on the same page.

Kate's Law came about when an illegal immigrant was deported numerous times after various criminal activity. Because San Francisco, where this took place, is a sanctuary city, officials didn't not prosecute this man. In July 2015, he shot and killed Kate Steinle; that case goes to trial next month.

What do I win?

 

[vraiblonde]

My question is, and I really do not know, does the 4th Amendment apply to illegal aliens? I thought it was for American citizens.

It is. Our Constitution does not pertain to citizens of other countries. Or at least it's not supposed to.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Kate's Law came about when an illegal immigrant was deported numerous times after various criminal activity. Because San Francisco, where this took place, is a sanctuary city, officials didn't not prosecute this man. In July 2015, he shot and killed Kate Steinle; that case goes to trial next month.

What do I win?

Okay, so an illegal immigrant shot and killed a woman so this bill was created to try and stop it from happening again. Would you agree?

 

[vraiblonde]

Okay, so an illegal immigrant shot and killed a woman so this bill was created to try and stop it from happening again. Would you agree?

No.

An illegal immigrant committed numerous crimes, including seven felonies. He was deported five times, and kept coming back. San Francisco, being a sanctuary city, not only declined to prosecute this man, but they also refused to cooperate with Immigration.

This bill was created to have a federal law that says if an illegal immigrant is deported, and they jump the border and come back, there will be a mandatory sentence for them that cannot be overturned by some ####ed up San Francisco progbot judge.

Is it a slap at "sanctuary cities"? You betcha, and it's about time somebody reigned in these ignorant flakes. Giving sanctuary to illegal immigrants is one thing; giving it to illegal immigrants who can't seem to stop committing felonies is something else entirely.

 

[SamSpade]

As with most of Trump's ideas and plans, it's a bit more complicated than he makes it seem ...

And I'm noticing more and more that it's intentional. If you *intend* to meet someone in the middle - START from as far away as possible.

I think he's craftier than people give him credit for.