Amnesty: The devaluation of American Citizenship

[Howie66]

Isn't that what plea bargain arrangements do?  And that comes from every type of crime from murder to rape to robbery, etc.  They're offered to make life easier for the prosecution and offer a deal for a guilty plea.  In the immigration arena, a plea bargain would mean the illegal had to turn himself in, pay fines, get in line and be working.  I'm not sure I see a lot of difference except that the illegal couldn't have been charged with a serious felony unlike those legally here.

According to one report, 97% of federal and 94% of state cases end in plea deals that result in lesser charges and/or lesser sentences.  That would encompass some pretty heinous crimes.

Exactly right.

Plea bargaining agreements are also monumentally stupid and morally wrong.

I don't care if the prosecutors have to work harder to prove their case. It's their damned job!

[MACVSOG68]

Exactly right.

Plea bargaining agreements are also monumentally stupid and morally wrong.

I don't care if the prosecutors have to work harder to prove their case. It's their damned job!

Victim advocacy groups would certainly agree with you in certain types of cases especially domestic violence issues.  Having said that though, why shouldn't a judge have the flexibility of lower sentences if the perp pleads guilty and saves the state the cost of a jury trial?  And for the same reasons, why shouldn't a prosecutor have some discretion in offering lesser charges? 

Providing a pathway to legalization for some illegals is simply an extension of that flexibility. And yes, I understand the emotions surrounding immigration, but I believe it will happen, and if the GOP doesn't participate in a reasonable fashion, either Obama will find ways to legalize many who shouldn't be, and/or we continue to have millions unidentified, living off of crime and the state.

[Howie66]

Victim advocacy groups would certainly agree with you in certain types of cases especially domestic violence issues.  Having said that though, why shouldn't a judge have the flexibility of lower sentences if the perp pleads guilty and saves the state the cost of a jury trial?  And for the same reasons, why shouldn't a prosecutor have some discretion in offering lesser charges? 

Providing a pathway to legalization for some illegals is simply an extension of that flexibility. And yes, I understand the emotions surrounding immigration, but I believe it will happen, and if the GOP doesn't participate in a reasonable fashion, either Obama will find ways to legalize many who shouldn't be, and/or we continue to have millions unidentified, living off of crime and the state.

You really have to look no further than the records of repeat offenders to see where that "flexibility" is a very crappy idea. A very large number of these criminal acts are committed by people that are no strangers at all to the "criminal justice system".

The very same thing applies to AMNESTY. These people have a long history and established habit of flouting our laws. It doesn't just stop with ILLEGALLY (what part of this word is so damned hard to understand?) crossing our borders.

There is an existing pathway to citizenship that is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason or justification to kick the people that have come to this country according to that legal path, in the balls, just to appease some damned lawbreakers, is there?

Take a good hard honest look at what the motivation for this AMNESTY discussion is in the first place and then tell me that it doesn't make you sick to your stomach. Granting AMNESTY is not going to help the GOP Establishment at the polls one little bit. It will not result in Libtards and/or the Media Maggots liking the GOP Establishment at all. You can put that in the bank.

AMNESTY will have no positive outcome what-so-ever and that is a FACT.

[MACVSOG68]

You really have to look no further than the records of repeat offenders to see where that "flexibility" is a very crappy idea. A very large number of these criminal acts are committed by people that are no strangers at all to the "criminal justice system".

The very same thing applies to AMNESTY. These people have a long history and established habit of flouting our laws. It doesn't just stop with ILLEGALLY (what part of this word is so damned hard to understand?) crossing our borders.

There is an existing pathway to citizenship that is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason or justification to kick the people that have come to this country according to that legal path, in the balls, just to appease some damned lawbreakers, is there?

Take a good hard honest look at what the motivation for this AMNESTY discussion is in the first place and then tell me that it doesn't make you sick to your stomach. Granting AMNESTY is not going to help the GOP Establishment at the polls one little bit. It will not result in Libtards and/or the Media Maggots liking the GOP Establishment at all. You can put that in the bank.

AMNESTY will have no positive outcome what-so-ever and that is a FACT.

Amnesty isn't what it should be.  Any legalization should result one by one and be provided to those who have no serious criminal history, who have a means of support other than the state, pay fees and penalties, have been here for a set period of time, and get in the back of the line.

Whether it helps republicans at the polls or not, refusing to negotiate this issue will certainly hurt them, as it's done in the past.  Outside of the political issue though, immigration reform can achieve a number of goals the right has wanted for years.

So whether it could have any positive outcome, opponents said the same thing eight years ago when this issue became front-burner.  What positive outcome came of that?  Are we better off or worse off today?  That was a rhetorical question. 

[evadR]

Exactly right.

Plea bargaining agreements are also monumentally stupid and morally wrong.

I don't care if the prosecutors have to work harder to prove their case. It's their damned job!

Not really. If it weren't for the plea system the courts would have to be increased by 10 fold.

The answer is to make the plea agreement forceful and make the perp serve the max.

Also, if you do away with the plea system you eliminate the possibility of leveraging the perp to get the bigger fish.

[DCPatriot]

Not really. If it weren't for the plea system the courts would have to be increased by 10 fold.

The answer is to make the plea agreement forceful and make the perp serve the max.

Also, if you do away with the plea system you eliminate the possibility of leveraging the perp to get the bigger fish.

Hell....just waterboard them....they'll give them up!   

[evadR]

Hell....just waterboard them....they'll give them up!   

Oh, I'm all for that.
Give em the Jack Bauer special.

[Howie66]

Not really. If it weren't for the plea system the courts would have to be increased by 10 fold.

The answer is to make the plea agreement forceful and make the perp serve the max.

Also, if you do away with the plea system you eliminate the possibility of leveraging the perp to get the bigger fish.

First we have to stop the idiotic practice of coddling the evil-doers. Take away the a/c, flat screens and dorm like living quarters and let them start making little rocks out of big rocks again. Take the revolving doors off of the prisons and replace them with serious punishment and these problems will settle the hell down. Guaranteed.

[rangerrebew]

I am probably alone in this thinking here on this site, but I think our existing laws are decidedly too anti-immigrant, and that has contributed to the problem.  Now, now.  Here me out.

If we go back to the 1950's and 60's when we didn't have a welfare state, and people could come and go as they pleased, there really was no problem.  People came up to pick fruit or whatever, and when the work was done they went back.  But then we made social welfare and unemployment available, so there was an economic incentive to just stay and do the seasonal work and collect unemployment the rest of the year.  The increase in border security also became a deterrent to coming and going.  It was easier to just move the family over once and be done with it.

The whole problem is caused by the economic divide between the US and Mexico.  Increasing border security and keeping migrant workers out will only widen the gap between the two countries.  We are both better off by allowing their workers in.  We get cheap labor to produce more affordable products, and they get much needed capital to improve their economy.  Free trade is always a win/win in the long run, and far better than erecting barriers, which only empowers government and special interest groups.

I propose that we loosen up our laws and let anyone in who is qualified and wants to work, but strictly enforce the law insofar as qualifying for public assistance and other benefits, which should be a prerogative of citizenship.  If it were up to me, this would include voting and access to public education.  The end result would be a robust exchange of labor between our two countries with the hope of creating a future common market.  It would also check states and especially the federal government from becoming too socialistic, whereas increasing border security only incentivizes  socialism.

In the end, we'd have a more secure border because most people would be coming through routinely, and our security apparatus could focus on those who are truly a security threat.

The problem with immigration is the government isn't dealing with it as the Constitution says.  The Constitution says congress is to make a UNIFORM code of immigration.  That bit of wisdom went out long ago.  We now have policies for illegals, policies for the kids of illegals, policies for criminals, policies for muslims, policies for Europeans,  etc., etc.  When a government attempts to be all things to all people, they wind up being worthless to everyone.  Eventually chaos ensues from all the different laws for different ethnic groups and a tyranny becomes the answer to low information voters.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The problem with immigration is the government isn't dealing with it as the Constitution says.  The Constitution says congress is to make a UNIFORM code of immigration.  That bit of wisdom went out long ago.  We now have policies for illegals, policies for the kids of illegals, policies for criminals, policies for muslims, policies for Europeans,  etc., etc.  When a government attempts to be all things to all people, they wind up being worthless to everyone.  Eventually chaos ensues from all the different laws for different ethnic groups and a tyranny becomes the answer to low information voters.

The Constitution directs Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, which is the process whereby an immigrant gains citizenship. The Constitution is silent on the topic of immigration itself.