Starmer And The Southpost Triple...
News2 mins ago
Will He Get The Wall ..
The Democrates will be going hell for leather to get this overturned.
Will Trump get his wall?
Look at the Democrates as 1 hypocrites and 2 just a bit like remainextremists. (I lost but will do and try anything to get my own way)
Will Trump get his wall?
Look at the Democrates as 1 hypocrites and 2 just a bit like remainextremists. (I lost but will do and try anything to get my own way)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yep.
//Federal prosecutors charged less people with drug-trafficking in June and July than in any month since 2001, when the US started to substantially increase border security.//
Of course Jelter Meers who wrote the "piece" for USA Today (anti Trump publication) makes comment on immigration issues all over the world(it's how he makes his living) usually critical of the authorities, whether from Brussels or Dubai, and their attempts to curb illegal aliens.
//Federal prosecutors charged less people with drug-trafficking in June and July than in any month since 2001, when the US started to substantially increase border security.//
Of course Jelter Meers who wrote the "piece" for USA Today (anti Trump publication) makes comment on immigration issues all over the world(it's how he makes his living) usually critical of the authorities, whether from Brussels or Dubai, and their attempts to curb illegal aliens.
The reason for that decline is that the system is being clogged up with comparatively minor immigration cases.
//But data show that border agents and prosecutors brought in 30 percent less people charged under drug-trafficking laws because they are busy bringing migrants to court for minor violations, which mostly resulted in no jail time and a US$10 fee.
[...]
“There’s no doubt in my mind that serious federal felony offenses are being declined because of the additional resources being spent on people crossing the southwest border,” said John Sandweg, a former acting chief of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “You’d think the emphasis would be on drug traffickers.”//
I guess that bit of the story is presumably part of the worldwide liberal new world order conspiracy to (... do something?) whereas the 30% decline in prosecutions is conveniently not, though. As with many matters of policy, the Trump preference is for what looks tough rather than what is effective.
//But data show that border agents and prosecutors brought in 30 percent less people charged under drug-trafficking laws because they are busy bringing migrants to court for minor violations, which mostly resulted in no jail time and a US$10 fee.
[...]
“There’s no doubt in my mind that serious federal felony offenses are being declined because of the additional resources being spent on people crossing the southwest border,” said John Sandweg, a former acting chief of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “You’d think the emphasis would be on drug traffickers.”//
I guess that bit of the story is presumably part of the worldwide liberal new world order conspiracy to (... do something?) whereas the 30% decline in prosecutions is conveniently not, though. As with many matters of policy, the Trump preference is for what looks tough rather than what is effective.
Does anyone care to answer my question of 09:24;
Are you not glad the Britain has the 'water-wall' of the English Channel? Does anyone wish Britain was attached to France and Belgium? If you are, you are in bad need of a history lesson.
A river would be better than a wall, (like the Rhine) but the Rio Grande runs the wrong way, and a channel is better than a river, so a wall is better, far better, than nothing.
Having spent time in New Mexico I can assure you it is, but most of those playing political games in Washington don't live in New Mexico.
Are you not glad the Britain has the 'water-wall' of the English Channel? Does anyone wish Britain was attached to France and Belgium? If you are, you are in bad need of a history lesson.
A river would be better than a wall, (like the Rhine) but the Rio Grande runs the wrong way, and a channel is better than a river, so a wall is better, far better, than nothing.
Having spent time in New Mexico I can assure you it is, but most of those playing political games in Washington don't live in New Mexico.
// Not a word of criticism about the existing 600 miles of barrier built under previous administrations … but this is Trump. //
Firstly that's a massive red herring: border security and fencing is a very different proposition from the massively expensive wall that Trump is proposing, that will cost way more than the $6 billion he's demanding (a more reasonable estimate is something like at least 5 times that, followed by several billion annually in maintenance and upkeep). Secondly, the Democrats were offering various other more reasonable and effective security measures, such as funding to employ more border security guards and the like.
Thirdly, you are now certainly confusing ends with means. If Trump wants the wall and obtains it through reasonable compromise -- the Democrats and Republicans agreed to fund an extra 55 miles or so of border fencing, and it's not totally off the table that there will be more funding in future budgets -- then that is normal political process. Compromise, give and take, and cooperation across political divides is desirable. But Trump has thrown that aside and, if he succeeds, risks destroying Constitution and Convention. Much will depend on the outcome of the inevitable legal battles that will drag on for years, but in essence this sets a precedent for all future presidents to ignore Congress whenever they wish, over whatever they wish, and makes a mockery therefore of the checks and balances that define American Politics. It is therefore short-sighed of Trump to exercise emergency powers in this way. Maybe he gets his wall -- but in future what will he have given up for it? A Democrat president in future can, and maybe will, grab funds in order to fund Climate Change, or Gun Control, or all manner of other policies that are part of the left-wing agenda if the President doesn't get their way. I mean, all that would suit me and others on the political left immensely, but what an irony it would be if Trump and his supporters enable that sort of thing because they were so impatient to chase a highly unpopular policy that they couldn't see past their own noses and grasp the wider picture.
Finally, and most significantly, this is not a left vs. right issue. Trump's fiercest critics include Republican Senators and right-wing commentators, all of whom would -- and do! -- support the principle of the wall but condemn Trump's approach towards getting it. I can understand that you don't listen to me, because I would say all this, wouldn't I? -- but maybe the criticisms of such spokespeople for the American right as Marco Rubio, Ann Coulter, Chuck Grassley et al.
Firstly that's a massive red herring: border security and fencing is a very different proposition from the massively expensive wall that Trump is proposing, that will cost way more than the $6 billion he's demanding (a more reasonable estimate is something like at least 5 times that, followed by several billion annually in maintenance and upkeep). Secondly, the Democrats were offering various other more reasonable and effective security measures, such as funding to employ more border security guards and the like.
Thirdly, you are now certainly confusing ends with means. If Trump wants the wall and obtains it through reasonable compromise -- the Democrats and Republicans agreed to fund an extra 55 miles or so of border fencing, and it's not totally off the table that there will be more funding in future budgets -- then that is normal political process. Compromise, give and take, and cooperation across political divides is desirable. But Trump has thrown that aside and, if he succeeds, risks destroying Constitution and Convention. Much will depend on the outcome of the inevitable legal battles that will drag on for years, but in essence this sets a precedent for all future presidents to ignore Congress whenever they wish, over whatever they wish, and makes a mockery therefore of the checks and balances that define American Politics. It is therefore short-sighed of Trump to exercise emergency powers in this way. Maybe he gets his wall -- but in future what will he have given up for it? A Democrat president in future can, and maybe will, grab funds in order to fund Climate Change, or Gun Control, or all manner of other policies that are part of the left-wing agenda if the President doesn't get their way. I mean, all that would suit me and others on the political left immensely, but what an irony it would be if Trump and his supporters enable that sort of thing because they were so impatient to chase a highly unpopular policy that they couldn't see past their own noses and grasp the wider picture.
Finally, and most significantly, this is not a left vs. right issue. Trump's fiercest critics include Republican Senators and right-wing commentators, all of whom would -- and do! -- support the principle of the wall but condemn Trump's approach towards getting it. I can understand that you don't listen to me, because I would say all this, wouldn't I? -- but maybe the criticisms of such spokespeople for the American right as Marco Rubio, Ann Coulter, Chuck Grassley et al.
So let's get this right...….major drug trafficking gangs are taken through the courts designated as suitable for "minor violations that usually result in no jail or a 10 dollar fine"? Haha more nonsense. Another dog whistle conclusion designed to spook the sufferers of Trump derangement syndrome. Now let's get this straight. I really don't mind that you believe the bull, in fact it is rather comforting given some of the stuff you manage to extrapolate, but I do object to being expected to swallow the poisoned chalice with you.
//“There’s no doubt in my mind that serious federal felony offenses are being declined because of the additional resources being spent on people crossing the southwest border,” said John Sandweg//
No doubt in his mind? No mind in his doubt more like.
//“There’s no doubt in my mind that serious federal felony offenses are being declined because of the additional resources being spent on people crossing the southwest border,” said John Sandweg//
No doubt in his mind? No mind in his doubt more like.
//major drug trafficking gangs are taken through the courts designated as suitable for "minor violations that usually result in no jail or a 10 dollar fine"? //
The quote was about agents and prosecutors, from a former director of ICE (let me guess, he's in on the conspiracy as well eh?). Trump's headline-grabbing policies have resulted in fewer drug trafficking prosecutions. This is precisely what happens when politicians (and voters) are dismissive of expertise.
The quote was about agents and prosecutors, from a former director of ICE (let me guess, he's in on the conspiracy as well eh?). Trump's headline-grabbing policies have resulted in fewer drug trafficking prosecutions. This is precisely what happens when politicians (and voters) are dismissive of expertise.
//The district attorney’s office in San Diego County, which covers the length of the southern border in California, said in June that the number of drug cases it received from Homeland Security agents who monitor border checkpoints doubled since the start of zero tolerance; three-quarters of them involved more than a kilogram of narcotics. A spokesman for the office declined to provide updated statistics. The Justice Department started hiring prosecutors and bringing in military lawyers to help.
Sandweg said prosecuting some immigrants has merit. He and other immigration officials pressed during President Barack Obama’s administration to bring more border crossers into federal court because they found that even token charges against immigrants from northern Mexico seemed to prevent them from trying again. The Justice Department rejected the idea.
Among those priorities are drug-smuggling cases. The drug cases that make it to federal court along the border are seldom small. In July, the Justice Department brought trafficking charges against a woman caught crossing the border in California with 76 pounds of methamphetamine, 15 pounds of cocaine and 3 pounds of heroin stashed in the spare tire and gas tank of her car. Federal prosecutors charged another woman with smuggling 37 pounds of methamphetamine in her gas tank.
Martinez said the decline in drug prosecutions in New Mexico is the result of less smuggling, not less attention from prosecutors and agents. For years, she said, border agents have caught fewer and fewer people trying to carry backpacks loaded with marijuana across the border. That number, she said, hit a new low this year.
Nonetheless the drug trade along the border remains vast. U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimated in March that agents seize almost 3 tons of narcotics on a typical day. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told Trump at a Cabinet meeting in August that agents “interdict more and more drugs at the border each month.” //
Oh dear......more "selective fact" reporting. As I said, the link provides earlier that suggested the prosecution of illegal immigrants was hindering drug smuggling enforcement is nonsense and nothing short of downright lies. It is a partial repeat of this report with the salient points redacted. More fakery from the libbies.
https:/
Sandweg said prosecuting some immigrants has merit. He and other immigration officials pressed during President Barack Obama’s administration to bring more border crossers into federal court because they found that even token charges against immigrants from northern Mexico seemed to prevent them from trying again. The Justice Department rejected the idea.
Among those priorities are drug-smuggling cases. The drug cases that make it to federal court along the border are seldom small. In July, the Justice Department brought trafficking charges against a woman caught crossing the border in California with 76 pounds of methamphetamine, 15 pounds of cocaine and 3 pounds of heroin stashed in the spare tire and gas tank of her car. Federal prosecutors charged another woman with smuggling 37 pounds of methamphetamine in her gas tank.
Martinez said the decline in drug prosecutions in New Mexico is the result of less smuggling, not less attention from prosecutors and agents. For years, she said, border agents have caught fewer and fewer people trying to carry backpacks loaded with marijuana across the border. That number, she said, hit a new low this year.
Nonetheless the drug trade along the border remains vast. U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimated in March that agents seize almost 3 tons of narcotics on a typical day. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen told Trump at a Cabinet meeting in August that agents “interdict more and more drugs at the border each month.” //
Oh dear......more "selective fact" reporting. As I said, the link provides earlier that suggested the prosecution of illegal immigrants was hindering drug smuggling enforcement is nonsense and nothing short of downright lies. It is a partial repeat of this report with the salient points redacted. More fakery from the libbies.
https:/
It's obviously not a lie, though. Ms Martinez suggests that the drop in prosecutions is because of a drop in smuggling. It is her job to say that. She's a paid spokesperson for the Attorney General of New Mexico, Hector Balderas, who obviously is not going to agree with the idea that fewer people are being prosecuted because of the zero tolerance policy on migration, because it makes him look bad. If she was right, then its not clear why drug cases would suddenly be turning up more frequently in state-level courts in southern California even though they are punished far less harshly there. According to her, they shouldn't be turning up anywhere else at all because there are fewer of them.
Meanwhile, the people who are saying it is due to zero tolerance taking up time and personnel are a former head of ICE and former head of the Major Crimes Unit at the San Diego. It is a fact that Trump's zero tolerance policy has created a huge glut of thousands of new cases with no new funding or resources for prosecuting them - do you seriously think this is a policy decision with no consequences?
Trump's border policy has so far resulted in fewer prosecutions for drug traffickers because it's designed to look tough rather than to work.
Meanwhile, the people who are saying it is due to zero tolerance taking up time and personnel are a former head of ICE and former head of the Major Crimes Unit at the San Diego. It is a fact that Trump's zero tolerance policy has created a huge glut of thousands of new cases with no new funding or resources for prosecuting them - do you seriously think this is a policy decision with no consequences?
Trump's border policy has so far resulted in fewer prosecutions for drug traffickers because it's designed to look tough rather than to work.
Not only that Khandro the critics of the zero tolerance and prosecute all such cases tactic either willfully, or mistakenly, fail to realise that it ensures that the ID of every illegal is logged, recorded and kept on file. Finger prints and mug shots are taken. This ensures the further safety against future criminal activity or false social benefit, or vote rigging activity. What's not to like? Unless you of course are a supporter of such activities.
//It is her job to say that. //
Bwahaha. Talk about twisting in the wind. Everyone who says what you want to hear is a saint, anyone with an inconvenient truth is deranged. We are all aware of you penchant for open borders and the free movement of itinerants. Why not just make that the point and not try to justify the stance with false premise?
Bwahaha. Talk about twisting in the wind. Everyone who says what you want to hear is a saint, anyone with an inconvenient truth is deranged. We are all aware of you penchant for open borders and the free movement of itinerants. Why not just make that the point and not try to justify the stance with false premise?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
News5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV7 mins ago
ChatterBank14 mins ago
