Maggie's Farm

this is how it works outside the world of libtarded fantasy where no illegal has ever committed a crime.

an illegal vermin is arrested by the state and prosecuted for favorite liberal crimes like rape, robbery, assault, murder. all the crimes that give libtards wet dreams.

the Department of Homeland Security is aware of these illegals in state custody and issues immigration holds or immigration detainers to the state officials ordering the scum to be handed over to the feds after jail or prison terms are served. under federal law, foreign vermin can be deported for certain kinds of felonies or multiple offenses of various kinds.

libtarded state officials, who love to release criminals back into the population, interfere with the federal process by disobeying the hold and releasing the illegals / convicts to go out and commit more crimes.

so, asshat, the fed isn't requiring states to administer the Immigration and Nationality Act, its requiring them to turn over illegals for federal immigration justice.

don't give me this bullshit about a federal case you didn't read and don't understand.

"low level crimes" means whatever you tards want it to mean. its not a legal category in immigration law, but its always means that in effect the state and not congress decides who is actually deportable and who isn't.

libtards love the illegal who commits multiple "low level crimes", not any one of which qualifies for deportation but combined do. of course, you probably consider rape as a "low level crime".

you people have got to stop lying about the law.

Zack has grossly misrepresented the issue, probably intentionally, because no one who reads Printz can be that wrong.

glad you bothered to read the case. you probably missed the day they taught constitutional law in third grade, so let me explain:

the case doesn't apply to immigration holds because the states aren't enforcing federal immigration law. "release the convict to federal custody" isn't the same as "prosecute vermin".

comprende brochacho?

take it up with congress if you don't like grounds for deportation.

if the feds use fed agents to round up illegals, so what?

unless you can explain why an immigration hold invokes the rule in Printz.

you're saying that immigration holds are unconstitutional?

I'm just trying to pin down your claim.

its the Department of Homeland Security who writes the administrative rules that implement the Immigration and Nationality Act.

if you don't understand how the game is played, you'll never fix the problem. except in the most superficial, preach-to-the-choir way, you don't have a grasp on these issues. and outside here, in the functioning world, your position is laughable.

here are the problems:

1. prosecutorial discretion by direction of the president is bullshit. the president controls prosecutorial discretion by ordering the US Attorneys to allocate resources to particular types of cases USAs are responsible for. there aren't enough USAs to handle all the immigration, civil, tax, criminal cases already there so these directives are inevitable. spend the budget prosecuting criminal RICO cases rather than sending Hose A and Hose B the gardener twins back to Mex. unfortunately, this is a difficult argument to address without budget increases.

2. Withdrawn federal court review of immigration law judges is bullshit. congress has steadily withdrawn administrative judge decision making from review by Article III courts, meaning an immigration court judge / bureau of immigration appeals panel can decide cases by very weak "discretionary" standards that are immune from correction by real judges. could be fixed with the right kind of congress.

3. Illegals' abuse of administrative law court procedure is bullshit. the constitution doesn't allow deportations without a minimal level of due process (meaning a hearing and review). An illegal who makes a claim under existing law to cancel removal, claim asylum, temporary asylum, etc etc etc can force the case into months if not years of litigation. and if you want to deport millions of people, millions of cases in court you will get, with hearing dates years away. drumhead tribunals are probably no good, so this is another budget issue.

4. calling this mass migration an invasion is bullshit hyperbole and adds nothing of value to the debate unless you're arguing that illegals should be shot on sight and the southern borders mined and wired. I am not disagreeing with this concept, but it will not pass constitutional muster.

I think reform should address the above and more particular:

1. Bracero program. a return to something like the bracero program where immigrant labor gets temporary work visas that expire and require the worker to return to whatever shithole he came from.

2. Fines and prison impose grossly heavy and disproportionate fines against companies and prison sentences for executives that hire undocumented workers in order to destroy the economic incentive to be here illegally.

3. understand the tactics of ALL pro-illegal groups to deal with them in open debate. These outfits want nothing more than a citizenship paths to every illegal alien here or foreign peasants in the rest of the world. there is no compromise like temporary work visas. they form and control the public debate by assuming and making you argue this presumption that all visas are permanent resident visas (which lead to citizenship). thus, the reasonable compromise of allowing a fixed number of workers that the US economy could use provided that they get the fuck out once their necessity is over is never on the table. this is the worst variant of "do it for the chil'run" argument.

4. bar all islams from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia and whatever 'stan is problematic until they get their shit sorted out or kill themselves. if ever.

these are reasonable solutions Trump might consider.