The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[Birds Away]

Yeah, and you have no idea what your talking about. You keep confusing your beliefs and assumptions with what others are actually saying. A desire to hold one's leaders accountable has nothing to do with battlefield politics.

I've heard of people having reading comprehension issues but not when you're reading what you wrote!

Un-freaking-believable.

 

[llh1956]

 

[Dddrees]

I've heard of people having reading comprehension issues but not when you're reading what you wrote!

Un-freaking-believable.

I can't help you read want you wished it said. By the way I never mentioned the Wizard of Oz , Dorthy, and Toto too until just now,

 

[Birds Away]

I don't care who's in charge. It could be the most capable President we ever had. It could be the most successfully military leader in our history but that's not the point. We're a Democratic society with a need to know in order to protect that Democracy.

No, I don't want time tables, and I don't need to know whenever they're going to take a s*** either. But I do want a better idea as to what our involvement will be with regard to troop strength and define his strategy better.

You clearly stated that you want the strategy and troop levels to be used in Afghanistan announced so that you, as a citizen, can provide the proper oversight. That's what those words mean. You can say that you misspoke or you can say that you have changed your mind but that is what those words mean.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Three? The court found that there were 157 illegals turned over, who had committed no state crimes, in violation of the order. I have no problem with the catching illegals, but not at the expense of other Americans.

The injunction banned detention "solely based upon the knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present in the United States." The number is actually 171 (there were 14 at the end of 2011) "persons not charged with a (state) criminal offence turned over to ICE." (page 7 lines 5-13). ICE implemented their Priorities for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Aliens program June 30, 2010 (see memo link below). The fact that ICE accepted these individuals indicates that they had prior felonies, federal warrants, detainer requests, and/or prior removal orders. THAT is not the same as "solely based upon... WITHOUT MORE". That is MORE and does not require the withdrawn [STRIKE]208g[/STRIKE] 287g jurisdiction.

And ICE was aware of the injunction and would not accept "mererly" illegals from Arpaio as of Dec 15, 2011, the same time as the injunction:

DHS Cuts Off Sheriff Joe Arpaio?s Access To ICE Programs ? Talking Points Memo

In other words, all indications are that if ICE took them, there was MORE than just unlawfully present.

In fact, the decision quotes that ICE policy was that they "only want to pick up felons" (page 5, lines 9-12). Also on page 5, lines 24-28, there were 3 individuals without state charges, who ICE would not take (no mention of if they fit the ICE Priority memo, had warrants, detainers, etc or not). For example, those three could have had detainers and when ICE was contacted, they determined the detainers no longer met the 2010 policy and refused. Or they could have been low on the list with the courts backed up and they just refused. This is detail that should be explained in a legal decision to categorically state whether or not there was "more" for these three individuals.

So, from the decision, I can find only three who were possibly detained for an hour and a half who might have been "merely" illegal. And, if they had ICE detainers that ICE for whatever reason choose to renege upon, that is still MORE than MERELY unlawfully present.

Decision:

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...cimages/news/arpaio%20contempt%20decision.pdf

ICE June 2010 Priority Enforcement Memo:

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2010/civil-enforcement-priorities.pdf

tl;dr: Except for three individuals where the facts are not presented, it appears that Sheriff Arpaio did abide by the plain meaning of injunction. It is possible he abided by the injunction in those three cases as well. The 157/171 detainees mentioned in the press were collected by ICE under the priority enforcement program indicating they were detained for more than simple unlawful presence, i.e. outstanding warrants, detainers or deportation orders.

Edit: The program that allows state/locals to enforce immigration law is 287g, not 208g. Corrected in red.

 

[Dddrees]

You clearly stated that you want the strategy and troop levels to be used in Afghanistan announced so that you, as a citizen, can provide the proper oversight. That's what those words mean. You can say that you misspoke or you can say that you have changed your mind but that is what those words mean.

We clearly see things differently and that's just fine with me. However just because you see this one way doesn't mean my words fit your definition. But your accusations that always lead you to question my service will never get us no where.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The injunction banned detention "solely based upon the knowledge or reasonable belief, without more, that the person is unlawfully present in the United States." The number is actually 171 (there were 14 at the end of 2011) "persons not charged with a (state) criminal offence turned over to ICE." (page 7 lines 5-13). ICE implemented their Priorities for Apprehension, Detention and Removal of Aliens program June 30, 2010 (see memo link below). The fact that ICE accepted these individuals indicates that they had prior felonies, federal warrants, detainer requests, and/or prior removal orders. THAT is not the same as "solely based upon... WITHOUT MORE". That is MORE and does not require the withdrawn 208g jurisdiction.

And ICE was aware of the injunction and would not accept "mererly" illegals fr mmmom Arpaio as of Dec 15, 2011, the same time as the injunction:

DHS Cuts Off Sheriff Joe Arpaio?s Access To ICE Programs ? Talking Points Memo

In other words, all indications are that if ICE took them, there was MORE than just unlawfully present.

In fact, the decision quotes that ICE policy was that they "only want to pick up felons" (page 5, lines 9-12). Also on page 5, lines 24-28, there were 3 individuals without state charges, who ICE would not take (no mention of if they fit the ICE Priority memo, had warrants, detainers, etc or not). For example, those three could have had detainers and when ICE was contacted, they determined the detainers no longer met the 2010 policy and refused. Or they could have been low on the list with the courts backed up and they just refused. This is detail that should be explained in a legal decision to categorically state whether or not there was "more" for these three individuals.

So, from the decision, I can find only three who were possibly detained for an hour and a half who might have been "merely" illegal. And, if they had ICE detainers that ICE for whatever reason choose to renege upon, that is still MORE than MERELY unlawfully present.

Decision:

https://drive.google.com/viewerng/v...cimages/news/arpaio%20contempt%20decision.pdf

ICE June 2010 Priority Enforcement Memo:

https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/releases/2010/civil-enforcement-priorities.pdf

tl;dr: Except for three individuals where the facts are not presented, it appears that Sheriff Arpaio did abide by the plain meaning of injunction. It is possible he abided by the injunction in those three cases as well. The 157/171 detainees mentioned in the press were collected by ICE under the priority enforcement program indicating they were detained for more than simple unlawful presence, i.e. outstanding warrants, detainers or deportation orders.

Ill have to look at the documents later, and I'll tell you my thoughts.

 

[Birds Away]

We clearly see things differently and that's just fine with me. However just because you see this one way doesn't mean my words fit your definition. But your accusations that always lead you to question my service will never get us no where.

It's English. Words have certain meanings. What you wrote can't be interpreted any other way. If you didn't want to convey that message you should have used different words.

As to the other, I would normally never question anyone's service. I realize how serious that is.

 

[llh1956]

As a citizen who has not served in the military but have a great appreation and pride for those who have and are currently serving, my thanks to all! As far as current military actions of the U. S. government in Afghanistan and other hot spots in the world all I want to know is that our military leaders in the field are killing bad guys sometime after the fact! I do not have a need to know of strategy, troop strength or movements (this info is can get troops killed period). Private citizens who feel it is their right to know every aspect are only wanting it for political fodder to ***** and wine!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Ill have to look at the documents later, and I'll tell you my thoughts.

That is more than fair, it took me awhile to dig this up and read it. My point boils down to Judge Bolton's decision bases the contempt of the injunction charge upon detaining illegals without Arizona state charges. That's not what Snow's injunction says, it said that they were barred from detaining based solely upon unlawful status and nothing more. IMO, it is a very reasonable reading to conclude that individuals with federal/other state warrants, existing deportation orders and/or ICE detainers qualify as "more" than simply found to be unlawfully present. They are fugitives. ICE accepted 171 of the 174 the sherriff's office detained, under the priority enforcement order, indicating they were most likely convicted felons. It's unknown if the other three had warrants/orders/detainers as the decision incredibly does not explore their status beyond no state charges.

Had Judge Snow intended that Arpaio could only detain based upon state charges, he should have written the injunction that way. He didn't.

 

[femurphy77]

I really don't think that is true. I think a minority like Trump, and a majority are glad he beat Clinton. Not the same thing at all.

BINGO!!

 

[Brad69]

Well the wars are going good!

I am still Retired!

By they way if you want to know troop levels just read the Army times. You can find out who has deployed When for how long ect.
The check the units Family Support Group facebook to get all the gossip!

 

[SheepDog4Life]

You clearly stated that you want the strategy and troop levels to be used in Afghanistan announced so that you, as a citizen, can provide the proper oversight. That's what those words mean. You can say that you misspoke or you can say that you have changed your mind but that is what those words mean.

I've had my experiences with that slippery bar of soap... now just white boxes.

 

[Dddrees]

It's English. Words have certain meanings. What you wrote can't be interpreted any other way. If you didn't want to convey that message you should have used different words.

As to the other, I would normally never question anyone's service. I realize how serious that is.

You have your meanings and I have mine. I have my experience and you have yours. There will be those who agree with you and there are those who will agree with me. Having somebody who claims he knows better than our generals and often finds himself complimenting strong men is yet another reason I want him to explain himself. I don't want those items that get people killed but I certainly want to know a little more as to his intentions. No matter I would still want the same from any other President as well. So be that.

 

[Birds Away]

I've had my experiences with that slippery bar of soap... now just white boxes.

As I've said before; he argues in circles until he has himself surrounded.


I'm surprised. Usually when this happens one of his protectors comes along to bail him out of the mess he's argued himself into.

 

[Birds Away]

You have your meanings and I have mine. I have my experience and you have yours. There will be those who agree with you and there are those who will agree with me. Having somebody who claims he knows better than our generals and often finds himself complimenting strong men is yet another reason I want him to explain himself. I don't want those items that get people killed but I certainly want to know a little more as to his intentions. No matter I would still want the same from any other President as well. So be that.

First you say our meanings are different and then you go on to give the reasons why you said exactly what I stated. You're amazing.

 

[Dddrees]

First you say our meanings are different and then you go on to give the reasons why you said exactly what I stated. You're amazing.

Well your certainly entrenched in your own little world. Don't get me wrong there are others in that world too, but it just so happens there are others that feel differently than you.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

As I've said before; he argues in circles until he has himself surrounded.

Been there, done that... got a closet full of those tee shirts. Lol!

I'm surprised. Usually when this happens one of his protectors comes along to bail him out of the mess he's argued himself into.

 

[Birds Away]

Well your certainly entrenched in your own little world. Don't get me wrong there are others in that world too, but it just so happens there are others that feel differently than you.

This isn't about ideology. This is about owning your own words.

 

[Dddrees]

Trump brags about the possibility of Arpaio Pardon.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-strongly-hints-pardon-ex-sheriff-arpaio-n795101