Consolidated Immigration Issues Thread


#564

These officers were publicly accused, the source is the fact that you know who they are.

Your leftist buddies made a huge enough deal about it that the sheriff’s office agreed to investigate the accusation, the source is that you know about it.

The following analysis of what happened next is sourced from me as I am the only person you have ever met with common sense.

With all of your bloodthirsty buddies panting for destruction the Sheriff’s department had a few choices.
They could serve up their innocent officers as sacrificial lambs and move the focus to another jurisdiction for prosecution; this would have gone nowhere and ruined the lives of the innocent officers so that idea was thankfully rejected.

They could have just gone full Trump and said loudly “my officers are guilty of nothing but doing their job, it is not a crime to talk to ICE and it never has been; to those who want the law to say otherwise I say get it changed or shut the hell up”. They would be heroes if they had decided on this course but the sheriff’s departments are political and that stamps out courage in leadership most of the time.

So they chose to “split the baby”, they would say “oops, we forgot to train our officers about this 30 year old law but we get this all straightened out going forward”

I am sure they patted themselves on the back for this plan, they spared their officers from an unjust witch hunt and appeased your terrorist buddies enough to send them away; BIG WIN!

Except that this story was a big story being followed by law enforcement all over Oregon, when they heard this apparent interpretation of the law it meant that every officer in Oregon would be expected to uphold this ridiculous interpretation or face your judicial terrorist buddies coming after them next; one fire was put out by this spin job but a larger one was ignited.

Now the state officers are seeking to protect themselves from the consequences of those who passed the buck; they want the law repealed or an official clarification to spare themselves from you guys.

That is what happened, no laws were broken and no punishments were assigned, your entire case is based on the PR job from one sheriff’s dept who lacked the courage to say “shut up stupid” to a bunch of judicial terrorists looking to spit on the innocent jn ordet to reward the guilty.

By the way, where is that “Judge that found these officers broke the law” that you mentioned?

Just kidding, we both know you made that up because all of the facts and all reason screams the opposite of your position.


#565

C’mon RET, I just see you just deflecting here; where’s your source?

You said it was a judge, and that there was three them. You said both of these things before I did.

In fact, I never said there was three.

So it seems like you have a source, so where is it?


#566

I never said “a judge”, I said they were judged to have done nothing illegal in the investigation and received absolutely no discipline or admonishment of any kind.

YOU said that “a judge” found them guilty of violating the law.

There can be no source for something that didn’t happen, that is why there is NO RECORD ANYWHERE OF ANY PUNISHMENT OR DISCIPLINE.

There would however be a court record explicitly detailing a guilty verdict if what you claimed was factual.

Of course there is no such record because you made it up, which is why I regularly say that you do not debate with intellectual integrity; you KNOW you are wrong and you KNOW your positions are indefensible given the agenda you claim to support.

Your positions are however perfectly reasonable if your agenda is to destroy most Americans capacity to thrive independent of the government teat, thereby insuring an easy majority of dependent voters to keep your party in power.


#567

Yeah you did, you just call them “Judicial Terrorists”.

Judicial = judge, by definition.

Yeah, see RET… you have a weakness in the way you argue.

You don’t know how to talk someone who disagrees with you when that person is for limited government, so you just mouth off accusations of Progressivism.

You do it with Rightwing_nutjob too, and he’s just as unmoved by it as I’am.

You’re like a leftist, accusing people of racism. Your arguments are a one-trick pony, where you’re just trying to figure out how to label someone “the bad thing”, and force them to capitulate.

Well as you like to say; I’m not apologizing.

You were in the wrong here, and you’re too much of a badsport to admit it.

And btw, those Deputies? Each of them said they (usually) turn a blind eye to illegals; they aren’t looking to enforce immigration laws. One even said that they openly push for release:

Released%20other%20illegals


#568

“judicial terrorism” is the term I use for your party, it means you use the judicial system to force innocent people to defend themselves at a cost that far exceeds what they can afford; the result is usually capitulation of the falsely accused and others like them who fear having their names smeared and their resources bankrupted if they find themselves in your crosshairs next.

Which I explained already and which you knew already.

You however said that “A Judge” found them guilty of violating the law.

And even now you refuse to admit that you made that up, take a wild guess how many who know you are surprised by that.


#569

I am not “arguing with someone who disagrees with me”, I am arguing with someone who refuses to admit their actual agenda and is hiding behind fake and false information KNOWINGLY.

And I know exactly how to argue with those people, you simply ignore their misdirection bait and expose their fallacies.

I argue differently with those who have intellectual integrity and disagree with me; but once they prove otherwise the “benefit of the doubt” ship sails.


#570

I said they found their actions were contrary to the law, but, they weren’t accountable for them, because no one trained them on what the policy for following the law was.

They instead followed the training they had received for dealing with other Federal agencies.

I checked again, it was the internal affairs inspector. I just went by you, who said it was a Judge.
I thought it was too, until I read the investigation report directly.


So nope, I didn’t make it up. Sorry RET.

Btw, where’s your source RET? I still didn’t tell you there were three deputies. Where did you read that?


#571

When I’ve made mistakes, I’ve admitted to it. I did it here, I did it with Wifi and windows Xp, and I did it with the Double-clutch.

You don’t do this. You don’t admit to any mistakes, and seem to treat even an admission to a technical error as conceding the whole argument.

Don’t get why you do that RET. When you’ve made a technical error, admit to it, I’m not going to hold it against you. You just make things confusing when you don’t.

Then it’s strange that you do the same thing, even when it’s Rightwing_nutjob or Fantasy_Chaser.

The same tactic, every time. Just prove the person is somehow adjacent to “Progressive”

Prove they’re the bad thing, just like a leftist accusing racism.


#572

You were not “going on what I said”, you were accusing me of being uninformed and ignoring context; then you declared your fairy tale about the judge (that you made up) from your self declared position of the “informed one”.

You would not have to keep chasing your tail in circles if you would just admit your real agenda; the facts would be your friend if you admitted that you just want to create a large enough dependent class to win elections without getting a single middle class private sector vote.


#573

… To prove that this counts as a sanctuary law?

The original description says it’s meant to prohibit enforcement of immigration laws.

The Sheriffs Association for the State Oregon says the same thing.

That statute has been in place since 1987, and unless the Oregon legislature changes it, that law will continue to prohibit Oregon police officers from acting as immigration enforcement officers.

That’s a sanctuary law definition alright.

Yet you’re not admitting it because you’re making this personal. That’s all this is RET; you make things personal when it isn’t necessary or called for.


#574

This is the circle back part of our program, you were caught making stuff up so now you want to go back to your former loss. The law is a fiscal responsibility law and does not obligate the state to spend a single penny or a single resource protecting illegals from the Feds; no sanctuary is mentioned or implied.

But I suppose you can just make something up for that as well, maybe a judge who ruled that Oregon is obligated to provide sanctuary for all illegals?

Then you can say that your fairy tale is my fault like last time! You know, because I “brought it up”.


#575

You said it was a judge, I thought it was too.

But it was the internal affairs inspector who lead the investigation into the deputies actions.
They were the ones who determined innocence here. So nothing was made up.

The internal affairs inspector said everything I did. You can read the report yourself RET.

Except I’ve quoted three sources from Oregon saying that’s what this is. Including one from 1987.

You’re not offering anything to counter that other than your own take.

Why should you be believed over them?


#576

You were caught making up your own “facts” and trying to claim that individual opinions are equal to the law.

No judge in any court has ever ruled that your manufactured law is a reality and no Oregon state agency or official is obligated to invest a single penny of State resources providing sanctuary to illegal aliens.

Those are facts, and I don’t have to invent them.


#577

I said the deputies were found innocent because they weren’t taught the policy for enforcing the law.

This is precisely what they say in the report I gave you.

So it’s time to be honest RET; you said this didn’t happen, but the report shows it did.

I admitted my mistake, will you admit yours?


#578

Nobody is “found innocent” when they admit to actions that are criminal because they were ignorant of the law.

Leniency may be offered in some cases for ignorance but never “found innocent”, and investigators do not determine anything except whether evidence exists to prosecute.

These officers boldly told the truth about their actions and none received any blemish of any kind on their record, those are facts.

Your PR statement is nothing more than that, evidence of absolutely nothing with authority.


#579

Nor “exonerated” (that’s the reversal of a conviction), neither of us have been using technical language, so it doesn’t make sense to pretend we have been.

And they weren’t found at fault, because they weren’t trained. They outright state this in the report.

You denied this happened, so you made a mistake.


#580

Can’t wait for Alaska Slim to lecture us on all the financial benefits THIS is gonna reap…

(emphasis mine)


#581

2017 population for Guatemala, 16.9 million, Honduras 9.2. That means 2.5 million THIS YEAR alone, from just 2 countries.


#582

Build the wall.
Build it tall.
Build it deep.
Build it wide.
Build it with a highway on top so I can drive.

Build it with towers.
Build it with solar power.
Build it with signs.
Build it with funds from fines.

Build it with guns.
Build it with mines.
Build it with cameras to film a great time!

^^I made that up. Maybe I should start writing songs again.^^


#583

Maybe. Then again, maybe not… :wink: (Who am I to judge, it’s better than I can do…)