Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!

[Nuts]

I feel that is conflating two variables though. Yes, illegal immigration is a crime. So is speeding- I’m not sure either one is indicative of the likelihood of committing violent crime. Illegal immigrants have not been shown to engage in violent crime more than the general population as far as I’m aware (I’ve seen studies that show less).

Not giving free pass to illegal immigration, but the violent crime angle is on weak logical footing imo.

Wait what? The remedy for both is easy.

1. Driving is a privilege. Not a right. So you lose that right if you speed to much and tickets don't solve it.
2. Coming into our country is also not a right. And not a privilege. You can't be here. We deport you. Problem solved.

How in Gods green earth are we comparing speeding tickets to illegally entering our country??

 

[Treeshark]

How in Gods green earth are we comparing speeding tickets to illegally entering our country??

They are both “crimes” that have nothing to do with ones likeliness to commit a violent crime.

 

[Nuts]

They are both “crimes” that have nothing to do with ones likeliness to commit a violent crime.

That I can agree with. Doe not change what the outcome for both is in my mind. But I think the this is now the argument being made since for some reason simply being illegally here isn't enough for some. For me it is.

 

[88man]

You realize that you are implying that its ok to redact/protect pedos and rapists now because...if we are to believe your point...Biden did too?

Was that really your intent?

My intent was to hear the thoughts of the left think tank and why they thought it wasn't done previously.

 

[Carnage2011]

I feel that is conflating two variables though. Yes, illegal immigration is a crime. So is speeding- I’m not sure either one is indicative of the likelihood of committing violent crime. Illegal immigrants have not been shown to engage in violent crime more than the general population as far as I’m aware (I’ve heard of studies that show less).

Not giving free pass to illegal immigration, but the violent crime angle is on weak logical footing imo.

I disagree. If you weren’t here illegally then the crime couldn’t have been committed.

Comparing speeding and illegally entering a country seems like a weak argument to me.

 

[Carnage2011]

IMO, the system for vetting, certifying, and allowing "people coming here legally" is woefully ineffective due to a structure not capable of handling so many who wish to live as US citizens. That system has been too little, too broken, too long. That failed system is what has resulted in border problems and in immigrants entering illegally. By in large, they have little other reasonably expeditious means of becoming "citizens".
I have recently conjectured that if I were from Venezuela, Haiti, or Somalia ... it might be that I would be an "illegal immigrant" living under the radar in Butte, America!

I agree that the system to enter legally is poor and needs drastic overhaul.

 

[jimh406]

the violent crime angle is on weak logical footing imo.

The crimes from "some" of the illegals are very significant to me even though you may not be hearing about them from your news. I guess we can disagree with how many crimes are significant. If your loved one was killed or raped by an illegal, you might think one is too many. How many gang members do we want from other countries? I think we can agree zero but maybe not.

The information is out there if you want to look. There's been quite a few posts on X with listings of the types of crimes "some" have created. The administration has also shown laminated cards with the people on them as well. Sure, "some" people who walked across the border aren't bad people, but that doesn't mean that "some" aren't extremely violent and are not providing any benefit to the country.

No country can sustain an unlimited number of people crossing their border. We are seeing some countries in Europe realizing it as well. The EU experiment of open borders is failing as well, so it isn't just a US problem. Some of the people have no interest in assimilating and are just enjoying a target rich environment to commit crimes.

 

[Bonasababy]

Illegal immigrants. That’s the issue…I have zero issue with people coming here legally. If “illegal” immigrants are committing crimes it could have been avoided if they weren’t here. That’s a crime that shouldn’t have taken place. I’m not comparing them to a US Citizen because citizens have a right to be here. If 6 illegal immigrants commit a crime, that’s 6 more than there should be.

If only we agreed on the definition of illegal. Most of the people ICE is targeting have the legal right to be here, they just are not citizens--yet. The administration even ordered final citizenship celebrations to be stopped for people that did it all right and were to be granted citizenship, so they can be detained and add to the quota numbers of individual officers and add to the total the administration is falsely claiming "Worst of the worst, taken off our streets".

There isn't nearly as much dispute over those here illegally who have not sought asylum, green cards, been working and contributing to the economy etc. as most that still support the administration think. It's all the abuses going after people doing it right--and people that ARE US citizens--that is the main problem.

 

[Treeshark]

I guess we can disagree with how many crimes are significant. If your loved one was killed or raped by an illegal, you might think one is too many.

If my wife was killed or raped by a speeder, I’d have the same thought. My point is that from a macro/statistics viewpoint, there does not appear to be a correlation.

I agree with most of the rest of your post though. It is an issue that should have been dealt with many years ago, through different means than is currently being used. Just my opinion.

I would say I’m anti illegal immigration, but not necessarily anti illegal immigrant. I know those two things may be incongruent, but that’s how I feel.

 

[jimh406]

Most of the people ICE is targeting have the legal right to be here

Seriously though, do you really believe "Most"?

 

[Bonasababy]

Seriously though, do you really believe "Most"?

Based on what we see in judges ordering release of those fortunate enough to get a lawyer before they were wisked away out of state with no lawyers allowed, yes.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/courts-have-ruled-4400-times-that-ice-jailed-people-illegally-it-hasnt-stopped-2026-02-14/

 

[BuzzH]

Might be worth a read...

As ICE Arrests Increased, a Higher Portion Had No U.S. Criminal Record - FactCheck.org

While the Trump administration insists that it is targeting the "worst of the worst" in its immigration enforcement, it has not provided information to substantiate that, and the data that is available suggests the claim has become less accurate over time.

www.factcheck.org

 

[jimh406]

Based on what we see in judges ordering release of those fortunate enough to get a lawyer before they were wisked away out of state with no lawyers allowed, yes.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/courts-have-ruled-4400-times-that-ice-jailed-people-illegally-it-hasnt-stopped-2026-02-14/

Let's keep in mind that judges frequently make political rulings that are overturned. Reuters is a political source.

But, even if it wasn't, you are thinking only 8799 illegals have been jailed? That's way off from the actual total. Maybe you meant "many". At least that could be argued as somewhat accurate.

 

[hank4elk]

Seen 2 bangers in cuffs. On TV.
No tats on any of these folks and certainly not the Mexican bangers I've seen.

Just last week filling my truck at gas station Socorro,a blacked out Navigator pulled in and I saw 4 Full Tatface and 2 were carrying guns under their shirts. Mexican plates.
How did they drive through 2 border checkpoints?

Have the DHS Vermach stationed at every port of entry and open every car to container.
Maybe some of them are trained at forklift?

 

[Irrelevant]

I very much appreciate the reply.

I took his statement to mean that he was extremely popular with his base not literally could he go out and kill somebody.

It has been very common for the press to take snippets of statements and not include the entire statement for example the “very fine people” comment during Charlottesville, or the blood bath comment, Trump was referring to the effect on the auto industry if China could make cars and bring them through Mexico. My point was that when you have a divisive president/candidate some of that is fueled by how he is reported by the press which in turn colors people perception of him. It is a feedback loop.

Trump is a radical departure from the norm of American politics. The cult of personality is such that you either strongly love him or hate him. He is and has been a threat to the entire structure, interestingly the status quo Republicans hate him as much as many Democrats, watch John Thune etc. He is such a perceived threat to the power base of both parties that both oppose him one quietly the other in a stealthy mode. Many of the Chamber of Commerce Republicans want to see him fail as much as they wanted the Tea Party to fail.

I find Trump a very narcissistic ego driven man, you must have an ego to think you should be president, but he has certainly brought it to a new level. Your link about Washington is interesting because I find him to be the exact opposite he did not want power and he also went against the grain, he fought for a rebellion and then crushed one in western PA, he loudly cautioned against foreign entanglements much to the chagrin of New England traders and sadly imo a policy that we abandoned. The other man was Jimmy Carter perhaps the best man that was ever elected and certainly one of the worst presidents that we ever had.

Personally, I am in favor of his policies, but I am not sure that you could have such a reversal of 50 years of status quo without a very disruptive president. I am pro-Ice because I believe in the Law of Supply and Demand I think we sold blue collar America down the pipe, between free trade, off shoring and importing low wage workers, these actions have been beneficial to the financial class but not the rank and file. We have incentivized illegal immigration with give aways: public benefits, medical, anchor babies etc. I know that other member will talk about jobs that Americans don’t want, GDP etc. but that is not what I see. I have lived all over the country Deep South, Front Range, and the Northern Prairies.

I did learn through the course of the conversation about how judicial vs administrative warrants work and the argument of 4th Amendment rights. I asked the question if non-citizens are entitled to the same constitutional rights and privileges as citizens, do they have 2nd Amendment right too? Do we cheapen something when anyone can receive them when their first act was to break the law and enter illegally?

Sorry for the long response, but the fact that you said you were thinking about my question made me realize even with the disagreements here on the forum I have been thinking too. I posted earlier that I have a son who is beginning his education/training and will be entering the work force in a couple of years it is difficult not to contemplate what happens/direction.

I hope the snow was good.

I appreciate your thoughts and your time to express them. I will continue to think upon them.

I have noticed that if you listen to all of a politician's speech, you generally get a very different perspective than what the media will portray.

 

[cgasner1]

If my wife was killed or raped by a speeder, I’d have the same thought. My point is that from a macro/statistics viewpoint, there does not appear to be a correlation.

I agree with most of the rest of your post though. It is an issue that should have been dealt with many years ago, through different means than is currently being used. Just my opinion.

I would say I’m anti illegal immigration, but not necessarily anti illegal immigrant. I know those two things may be incongruent, but that’s how I feel.

If that accident happened by a 13 year old kid driving a car that shouldn’t have been behind the wheel I’d bet you feel different. I think that’s the point being made here is that these aren’t accidents and the people shouldn’t be here. Kind of a ridiculous comparison you make it sound like a normal licensed and insured drive made a mistake

 

[SAJ-99]

I asked the question if non-citizens are entitled to the same constitutional rights and privileges as citizens, do they have 2nd Amendment right too? Do we cheapen something when anyone can receive them when their first act was to break the law and enter illegally?

The Constitution wasn't designed to "give" rights. It was designed to limit the powers of governments. That is a nuance that is often lost. For example The $th says

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You can see that the word "citizen" is not used. It has been interpreted for 240 years or so that that right applies to all people in this country, citizen or non. Same for the 2nd amendment, at least up until the States start making other laws and SCOTUS said it was fine. About 100 pages back a non-US citizen was allowed in the military with a green card. I am pretty sure they handed that guy a gun pretty quick after he signed up.

The core laws of this country were made to limit what the government could do. It did not "give" the rights to ordinary people and certainly not the "unalienable rights endowed by their creator". This makes democracy difficult and messy.

 

[Treeshark]

Kind of a ridiculous comparison you make it sound like a normal licensed and insured drive made a mistake

I agree that it is kind of a ridiculous hypothetical (one that I didn’t make in the first place, for what it’s worth).

 

[Nuts]

I am not a constitution expert. I can't debate the constitution. Just a simple guy. My question immediately when reading this is who are the people. In everyday life we can refer to our people (family, work associates etc) I struggle to see where "The people" would refer to folks not from here or not here by permission. That would have given invaders rights? Am I wrong? As long as they behave they are safe until they act out?

 

[Handlebar]

The Constitution wasn't designed to "give" rights. It was designed to limit the powers of governments. That is a nuance that is often lost. For example The $th says

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You can see that the word "citizen" is not used. It has been interpreted for 240 years or so that that right applies to all people in this country, citizen or non. Same for the 2nd amendment, at least up until the States start making other laws and SCOTUS said it was fine. About 100 pages back a non-US citizen was allowed in the military with a green card. I am pretty sure they handed that guy a gun pretty quick after he signed up.

The core laws of this country were made to limit what the government could do. It did not "give" the rights to ordinary people and certainly not the "unalienable rights endowed by their creator". This makes democracy difficult and messy.

You are correct, it was an incorrect use of the word rights. So guy with a green card in the military notwithstanding, does some who illegally enters the country have the same 2nd Amendment "rights" that citizens have?