Apology accepted and I apologize as well. Have a good day.

As I clearly pointed out, AJ was making that up. He was unable to provide a link to any place where I had said anything even remotely like that. and I was just pointing out, basically that you had missed that little clue. Actually I have no problems with you and apologize if I was a little too insensitive. Keep writing.

It wasn’t life or death to me, I would have been just as nice.

FE Should we now address you as NFEA (not for enforcement alone)?)

If you can show me I’ve ever said I was for enforcement only, I’ll concede to that,  but I’ve certainly never said I was or was not for enforcement only

my name comes from the subject of illegal aliens and means what it says   For Enforcement (of existing laws)    It has no other meaning and I never put the word ‘only’ on my name.      So should we now address you    as “Satrist the Clueless”  ? 

 Talking about bringing a thread to a halt.

Should we now address you as NFEA (not for enforcement alone)?)

Be nice now.

Had the new bill passed, all this would have been moot, they would all have gotten legal status permanently and that would have been that.

So, again, the point? Who ever said to not pursue a constitutional process? Just because the LOSERS claim the WINNERS advocated it doesn’t make it true. Sore Losers.

Winston Churchill once remarked that God takes care of drunks and the United States of America and so it seems to be as we approach the end of a remarkable week in which milestones of success for the conservative movement have come one after another.

how did he say that again? ” milestones of success for the conservative movement”
sounds as if he has it feet on the floor and hands on the wheel.

They are caught in an immigration raid and given a summons to appear before a magistrate or a judge. This is something similar to a “ticket”. During this time, the government can look into a person’s background and see if they are any kind of a threat to the community such as a criminal history, connections to terrorism, etc. When they make the initial appearance, if they are deemed to be a potential threat to the community, they can be remanded to custody pending a later hearing. If they are not a threat and are still working or have dependents who are US citizens, they are given a court date and released. The length of time that passes till that court date can vary according to the work load in the district where the proceedings are taking place but can be up to a year in the future or more in busier districts. In other words *simply* being here on an expired visa or having walked across the border and taken a job is *not* grounds for automatic deportation / incarceration *unless* they waive their hearing process which they are encouraged to do by immigration agents. Immigration groups are working to further clog this process by encouraging them *not* to waive their hearing process causing an even greater backlog of cases in the courts that hear them.

Once these people have their hearing they could be allowed to stay or they could be subject to deportation. If found to be subject to deportation, they can appeal. If they lose the appeal, depending on their country of origin and particulars about them, they can then try for asylum or refugee status. So a Palestinian or Iraqi Christian or an Iranian Jew (Iran used to have the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel until recently) might qualify as for asylum or refugee status.

Note that “catch and release” doesn’t really apply to these people. That is mainly for people that are caught in the process of crossing he border or migrants with no fixed address who are in transit to jobs. In the past, those people were also given a summons and released but rarely ever appeared because they were on their way to a different region of the country and have no fixed address in order to locate them. THOSE people are now taken into custody and if they do not waive their hearing process are kept in custody until their hearing. As they have no permanent job, no fixed address and likely no US citizen dependents, they are most often deported and most often waive the appeals process to avoid being held for a long time in custody.

Now, once someone is deported and they are AGAIN caught in this country without approval, they can be jailed as a criminal and again deported.

There is a difference in the process for people who simply drift around the country looking for available work as opposed to someone who has settled, has taken a permanent job, has kept out of trouble, started a family, and is a part of the community. That is, I believe, as it should be. People like that are an asset to our country and should be allowed to stay. The migrants should be given work permits that allow them to go home when the work is done (winter) and come back when there is more to do (spring). And those who have already been deported once should be incarcerated if they are found here again without having the proper documentation.

“Enforcing the law” means allowing these people their day in court, taking each one on a case by case basis, and giving them all due process. It does “not” mean simply rounding people up and shipping them off simply because someone doesn’t like them or something.

HA HA HA.