Seperated families and conflating with NAZIs

 In the debate over separating children from their families at the Southern Border, Democrats seem comfortable that while President Obama locked up hundred of thousands of unaccompanied minors in sordid conditions, he did not separate most them from their families. What the Democrats want you to ignore is the fact every unaccompanied minor is the result of separated family and the flood of unaccompanied minors that showed up on the Southern border was the result of President Obama policy of giving unaccompanied minors a pass into the country.  The Democrats also bemoan the  lasting affects of children being separated from their families; how is this different from what unaccompanied minors have been through, where they were no only separated from their families but had to travel unaccompanied an extremely dangerous trip of near 2000 miles, where many of the unaccompanied minors  had to endure attacks, robberies and the females rape. Certainly this will also have a lasting affect on their psyche

At least the media is covering what is going on and President Trump is trying to change a poorly thought out policy. Now the left is accusing President Trump of suspension of due process. The immigration policies have been broken for decades, and now the left expects President Trump to fix it with just a phone and a pin; something of course that is the suspension of due process.

"Donald Trump likes to divide families when they first cross the U.S.-Mexico border; Barack Obama preferred to let them get settled in the interior and then send ICE agents to arrest mommy or daddy at home or work, leaving the children behind...During the Obama years, more than 40,000 U.S.-born kids whose parents had been deported were dumped into foster care." https://www.oregonlive.com/... This compared to the 2000 family separations that occurred under President Trump at the border.
President Obama also caged over 90,000 unaccompanied minors in a tidal wave of foreign nation children that flocked to the border are President Obama said they would get a pass into the country. So the fact is President Obama forced the separation of families with his unaccompanied minors policy. This is much like the Democrats separating fathers from black families when they offered much more welfare money to single mothers, then families still living in poverty.  

The term fascists defines a type of totalitarian collective government that eliminates indivual rights in the name of security, often using reactive violence to quite dissent;  but to the left it means any action they don't like, even though the left is renown for using fascists tactics to crate fear from the puplic and forward their political worldview.  Here is a little education, fascism excludes any president that advocates indivual rights and liberty, as fascists rule is by governmental fiat through more and more suffocating regulations. President Obama increased the power of the government by implementing a slew of regulations all intent on controlling the means of production and trying to create a collective that would kowtow to world governance. President Obama also ignored court orders, while President Trump has adhered to all the court orders from activist judges that have interfered with President Trumps Constitution powers; he complained but he followed them and waited for a Supreme court ruling that have found on his side every time. A fascist regime is also against the will of the people because the powers that be know better. This is exemplified by the left making up allegations and forcing a fishing expedition without any predicate crime; which has never happened before in the history of the DOJ; all to overturn a legal election.

The left has also become a apologist for NAZI tactics, as they trivialize the horrors the victims when they conflate the detention of illegal foreign Nationals, to NAZI death camps and other atrocities. The end result is many are ignorant the level of debauchery by the NAZIs. Some of this ignorance comes from the fear of microaggressions (in the case of learning about NAZI atrocities there is nothing "micro") by snowflakes. There are many that would be so traumatized just by reading about the NAZI death camps, they would rather be ignorant of the horrid reality and assume it was no worse that ICE separating families that illegally crossed the border. There is simply nothing that the illegal foreign nationals have experienced that is in any way comparable to being marched into gas chambers. As someone said, the moment one mentions NAZI they have lost the argument.

Comparing Deportations to the Holocaust

ICE rounds up illegal aliens and deports them, something done by every country in the world to protect their sovereignty, except many other countries imprison their illegal aliens. The N@zi's rounded up their own citizenry and annihilated them; it's the difference between the routine and the ungodly evil. It's sad that one would trivialize the unspeakable horror her family faced from the Holocaust simply because her political party lost an election and she disagrees with the rule of law being enforced. The end result of throwing up Hitlerian similarities of the opposing party, as the Democrats do on a constant basis, is based entirely on the trying to delegitimizing those they oppose by inferring that their opponents are horrible, mean, and totally uncaring, while they have a monopoly on caring and riotousness. The Democrat Party, rather than arguing their policies and worldview, demonize and try to delegitimize their opponents, in an effort to say, "Look at me, I'm a wonderful caring person and they are contemptible", as if attempting to pushing down their opponent raises them up. Well the people have wised up, and thrown them out of office, not only in Washington but across the country. The Democrats are responding by doubling down, now advocating violence against their opponents and randomly destroying property.

There was a time when no matter how much you disagreed with your opponent, the use of violence was mutually abhorred and demonized, but today it is being encouraged (or tacitly approved) as Democrats move to instill fear, disrupt and silence their opponents. It's just another example of how low the Democrats have fallen

President Obama Does Not Have the Authority to Ignore Immigration Law;

 To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Prosecutional discretion is not an absolute privilege. To believe the President Obama has the authority to ignore Immigration law via prosecutional discretion, is to believe that  prosecutional discretion trumps the Constitution Article II's, Take Care Clause, which requires that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
There's no logical stopping point to the prosecutorial justification underlying President Obama's immigration policies. Presidents could simply decide not to enforce entire sections of the Clean Air Act, tax code or labor laws, or exempt entire categories of people — defined unilaterally by the president — on the assertion that those laws are "unfair" and there aren't enough resources to go around. The president would have power to grant a "privilege" or exemption from any federal law, defying the plain language those laws and the will of the people's Congress. Constitutional Limits to Prosecutorial Discretion

The projected executive action (EA) by President Obama, if signed, will be doing the illegal immigrants all ready in this country a great disservice. In previous cases President Regan and Bush used an EA  that addressed omissions in existing immigration legislation, that did not cover the children of illegal aliens that were allowed to stay in the country to pursue legal status. In other words the EA addressed issue in an existing law and unlike President Obama's EA, did not create a new law, which is unconstitutional. The EA also does not carry with it the same authority of a law voted in by Congress and signed by the President; this EA will simply be a directions to Homeland Security (via prosecutional discretion) to stop deportations of illegal immigrants already in the country, but prosecutional discretion does not legalize a violation of the law, it simply says in this specific case justice is otherwise served by not prosecuting a law breaker. This means that Obama's projected order does not change the fact that the illegal immigrants in the US will still be violating the law; so this security blanket could quickly be pulled out from under these same immigrants by a court order or the whim of the next President.  In this case illegal immigrants will continue to live in the shadows not knowing what is going to happen to them as there is no law behind the President EA.

Consider the President has already shorted ICE with the money and agents necessary for deportations. President Obama’s budget would rewrite the federal government’s interior immigration enforcement priorities, cutting funding for states that try to help enforce immigration laws and scaling back the number of immigrants the federal government will detain while they await deportation. He sent the proposal to Capitol Hill on Wednesday, at a time when congressional lawmakers are trying to write a broad immigration bill to bolster border security and interior enforcement, and to screen millions of illegal immigrants who could gain legal status under the legislation. All of that will cost money, but Mr. Obama’s budget cuts overall funding for the Homeland Security Department. It particularly trims interior enforcement initiatives, such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which has widespread support among members of Congress...Ms. Napolitano’s budget boosts spending by $1.1 billion for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which includes the Border Patrol and officers who watch the ports of entry. But it reduces by nearly $650 million, or 11 percent, funds for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles interior investigations and deportations. Obamas Budget a Blow to Immigration Enforcers

There is also the effect the President's EA will have on blacks and other minorities. "As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose. Our analysis suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost a full percentage point." Blacks Hit Hard by Increased Immigration 

Another issue not being reported on is how President Obama's Executive Amnesty will continue the  victimization of illegal aliens.  Since the majority of Americans are already against amnesty without even experiencing the inevitable hardships it will cause, the left will again allow the focus of their unpopular agenda to be scapegoated. When one considers that Americans have yet to feel the full effect of ObamaCare, which has never been popular to begin with, the Presidents actions now will likely guarantee the next president will have to run on revoking both the President Obama's EA on immigration and ObamaCare as well.  And of course that doesn't even consider the likelihood that once Obama's  Executive Amnesty is in place, he will announce another EA to give healthcare to the illegal aliens in the country, now protected from deportation. Whatever happens there will surely be a collective sigh of relief (that has not been heard since Woodrow Wilson's time) once this lame duck President is finally gone. 

The Unintended Consequences of Sanctuary Cities

The City of Santa Cruz is in trouble, with the senseless deaths of Carl Reimer and Tyler Tenorio at the hands of gang members, and now the trashing of the Pacific Av business by so called Anarchist. There a single thread that tie these incidents together and that is Santa Cruz city status as a Sanctuary City. Now I am not saying there is a direct cause and effect here, there might be, but that will not be known unless all parties have been identified. What I am saying is the Sanctuary City status has created the environment, where these crimes are allowed to fester.

When a city designates itself a Sanctuary City, it is arbitrarily creating a protected class. As it does so it propagates the notion that America is a country of arbitrary rights not a country of laws. The 14^th Amendment made it quite clear, that in the eyes of the law, all are equal. But the Sanctuary City movement circumvents that concept by saying the city is going to ignore the law in the case of this protected class. Once this has been done, there is nothing to stop other groups to declare themselves as a protective class. This has already happened with the anarchist groups, who view their agenda so important that they can ignore the law and cause wanton vandalism. One should not confuse Sanctuary City movement terror groups that advocate vandalism and violence, with civil disobedience. The purpose of civil disobedience is to challenge a law, not ignore it. The heroes of the civil rights movement, using non-violence, challenged the powers that be to arrests them and did not cover their faces to hide their identity; the civil rights marchers were courageous and nothing like the cowards of today.

Finally, it is not racist to say that the Sanctuary City movement adds to gang violence and ties the hand of the police. It is a common event for police officers to run across gang members that are classified as “Previously Deported Felons” and are unable to do anything but complete a contact card. In order to detain these criminals for ICE, the police would have to contact ICE to place a hold; but, the police are directed not to contact or cooperate with ICE. We know that the majority of illegal immigrants have come to America to improve their station in life and not join criminal street gangs. So if we accept that premise, how can the city counsel in good conscious not allow the police to turn these criminals over to ICE once they have been identified?

John Adams believed, “the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.” This is not a callous belief that the government is always right and the people must cower to it's authority. Just the opposite, it means justice is blind and no one is above the law. When you try and skirt the law with Sanctuary Cities, you reap the unintended consequences the rule of law, by definition, eliminates.

The Right to Be Safe; Except Arizona

Most the arguments and now protests against the Arizona state illegal immigrant law are disingenuous at best, but is another example that illegal immigrants have become a defacto protected class. The illegal immigrants that are in the US certainly have no right to demand that they not be approached by law enforcement and ask for evidence of legal residency. Most of these southern border illegal immigrants come from countries where the possession of documents of legal residency are required of all citizens; their right to not be contacted due to a jurisdictional dispute in the US carries no weight. Then you have resident aliens in the country legally. Since a condition of their legal residency in the US is they have their proof of legal residency or “Green Card” on their person at all times, the idea that they should protest law enforcement’s right to contact them and request their proof of legal residency goes contrary to the very reason they are mandated to posses their proof of legal residency. The persons that it would seem have the greatest investment, are American citizens that believe they will be racially profiled and constantly harassed by having to prove their citizenship. Those that are protesting Arizona law for this reason are saying they doubt the ability of law enforcement to not profile or to use the reasonable cause clause, both of which are mandated in the law.

The problem with the above argument is it is built on a house of cards. The current law of the land prohibits profiling and law enforcement use reasonable cause throughout the country for detentions and arrests. Those that are protesting this law, have a very skewed idea of how illegal immigration should be handled and do not understand the concept of reasonable cause. When anyone is legally contacted by law enforcement, the first request of the officer is for identification. If one produces valid identification, i.e. a driver’s license, a state ID card, or Green Card, then there is no legal residency investigation, because the investigation would lack reasonable cause. What would initiate an investigation? A reasonable cause investigation relies on a number of factors, with any one factor not being sufficient to make an arrest. Most of the following scenarios are legal behavior when taken by itself, but when combined with these and other factors, and depending on individual circumstances, could lead a law enforcement officer to make a reasonable cause arrest. 1) the subject produces counterfeit identification, a non-USA National ID card or no identification at all 2) the subject has limited English skills 3) the subject is driving without valid driver’s license 4) the subject is in the company of others with limited English and no valid identification 5) the subjects admits he is in the country illegally (very common) 6) the subject is known to law enforcement, has been previously deported and returned 7) there is a citizen complaint. Again, most of these behaviors are legal, but when combined with three or four together and depending on the specific circumstances of the lawful contact, there may be enough reasonable cause to make an arrest.

Very few would argue that ICE should not be enforcing immigration law and that is where the enforcement rightfully and constitutionally belongs. But the Federal Government has turned a blind eye to the Arizona/ Mexican border, where it is not safe for Arizonians and/or Hispanics to walk down the street (yes, most the victims are Hispanic). The Arizona law is identical in most ways, but is actually more restrictive; the federal law allows for contact on reasonable suspicion, without the need for a prior lawful contact. It is a crime that there is no Federal Immigration reform, but until the federal government lives up to their responsibility, Arizona is stepping up to protect its citizens. The protests simply want to defend the illegal immigrants as a protected class, which they believe have a greater right to safety than the Arizona residents. One of the basic obligations of our government is to keep the citizenry safe, nowhere does it say, except for Arizona.