Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Chipotle finding innovative ways to keep costs down in tough economy
#41
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=kj]
[quote=Grace62]
Now that you've deigned to join the conversation, I will say that I mostly agree. However, I don't think that I9 enforcement has been in place long enough to react with such sweeping conclusions, this is new policy. I still think that people are thinking of the Bush-era workplace raids, and that is not what I9 enforcement is. It's paperwork auditing.

Deportation under the Obama administration has focused on people convicted of serious crimes, and the number of those deportation is up sharply, which is something I think we should applaud.

I find this part interesting because what happens here is that when criminals are deported, they come right back. It's like catch and release. So by and large, the people who have been found to be here illegally and incarcerated serve out their prison terms here. How does the new plan address this kind of thing? kj.
Hrm. Actually, this really varies by state and by crime. Some convicted criminals who are out of status are deported immediately without serving jail or prison sentences; others serve their time and are then deported. There is a fair amount of flexibility (though there are guidelines in place) for who remains imprisoned and who gets sent home. More serious crimes, particularly aggravated felonies and drug crimes, more often land the felon in prison. Someone convicted of a minor offense, like shoplifting or petty larceny, more often will have their sentence suspended and be deported immediately.

The Secure Communities program does more than track cases through court, however; it actually screens people as they are detained by the police, and if they have a previous conviction (even if the sentence has been served, etc.) allows ICE to hold them for deportation. This is done because many state and local correctional facilities did/do not check the immigration status of their inmates; this is gradually changing with the expansion of 287(g) agreements.

For the record, the number of people previously convicted of aggravated felonies who re-enter the U.S. and are captured is statistically small (as a percentage of all deported immigrants), but not tiny. Precise numbers are hard to find, because technically speaking anyone who has been deported before and re-enters the country has committed a felony. However, it would be a big mistake to conflate most of these folks - who are generally economic migrants - with rapists and drug dealers.
I'm sure it is a small percentage. I was just wondering whether that is necessarily a good thing that more of the convicted illegal immigrants are deported. That could mean more of them end up back on our streets. There's no doubt in my mind this kind of revolving door has had an impact on our community, which makes me suspect (although I don't know) it might elsewhere. kj.
Reply
#42
kj wrote:

I'm sure it is a small percentage. I was just wondering whether that is necessarily a good thing that more of the convicted illegal immigrants are deported. That could mean more of them end up back on our streets. There's no doubt in my mind this kind of revolving door has had an impact on our community, which makes me suspect (although I don't know) it might elsewhere. kj.

After people serve their sentences, they are deported. If they are NOT deported, it's 100% sure that they will be "back on our streets."

I'd prefer they head home.
Reply
#43
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=kj]

I'm sure it is a small percentage. I was just wondering whether that is necessarily a good thing that more of the convicted illegal immigrants are deported. That could mean more of them end up back on our streets. There's no doubt in my mind this kind of revolving door has had an impact on our community, which makes me suspect (although I don't know) it might elsewhere. kj.

After people serve their sentences, they are deported. If they are NOT deported, it's 100% sure that they will be "back on our streets."

I'd prefer they head home. Grace, I think you're missing kj's point. He's arguing that deporting undocumented criminals will only result in these individuals returning and ending up on our streets. He's suggesting, in order for them not to end up back on our streets, that we don't deport them. Clear?
Reply
#44
Do you mean keep them in jail indefinitely? By what law?
You can't hold people beyond a sentence served, that's unconstitutional.
After they serve their sentences they are deported. NOT deporting them means they walk out of jail onto your streets.
Reply
#45
Do you mean keep them in jail indefinitely?

No-- kj didn't say anything of the sort. Please don't put words in his mouth.


(pssst- kj-- how am I doing?)
Reply
#46
Ok, ok. You had me worried there for a minute.
Reply
#47
Grace62 wrote:
Ok, ok. You had me worried there for a minute.

It's been a long day ;-)
Reply
#48
Grace62 wrote:
Do you mean keep them in jail indefinitely? By what law?
You can't hold people beyond a sentence served, that's unconstitutional.
After they serve their sentences they are deported. NOT deporting them means they walk out of jail onto your streets.

I think kj must be advocating building more prisons and raising taxes to pay for them.
Reply
#49
Since he doesn't want any criminals deported, will we be sending them all to Idaho? Gov. Otter could have them shoot all the wolves for him. Two-fer!
Reply
#50
Grace62 wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]

Are you generally in agreement with this? It was my key point from the post in question:

[quote=rjmacs]
However, i am unconvinced that deterrence in the form of fines (rather than, say, prison time) is likely to be effective. Auditing is anemic enforcement, chiefly effective in keeping those who are likely to comply in line. Those who stand to profit significantly by flouting the rules are weakly incentivized by the threat of minor financial sanctions.

No, I am not in agreement. You should update your knowledge of I9 enforcement and penalties.
I'm pretty sure that i know what the penalties are, both civil and criminal. Since FY2009 there have been fewer than 100 criminal arrests connected to workplace investigations. I wasn't able to find out exactly how many criminal convictions were made, but you could probably count them on the ICE website; each appears to merit its own press release. I'm beginning to think that we're just going to disagree on this until more data are available. If you think otherwise, i'm happy to keep discussing it.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)