Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Introduces Bill: Border Patrol+ICE Must Document Every Stop

Isn't there already data out there to support the effectiveness of ICE/Border Patrol?

And I'm actually sort of surprised that with Trump in office folks haven't tried to get all of those decisions granting illegals constitutional rights (well, except for voting, gun ownership and some federal employment) overturned.
As far as I know there is no solid data on Border LEO harassment of citizens. We have good numbers for people we have processed.
 
It's obvious why Democrats would be interested in increased accountability along with increased enforcement.

The conservative political party should be all about crunching the numbers to see if programs are delivering as promised. Especially since we're spending more money and hiring more agents.

This seems like something both parties should want.
But at the cost of hampering the actual enforcement though?
 
As far as I know there is no solid data on Border LEO harassment of citizens. We have good numbers for people we have processed.

I'm sure we'd hear about it if it was actual citizens being harassed . . . if you're within a certain number of miles to a border I'd be shocked if various random folks aren't stopped and checked.

We drove from Flagstaff to San Diego and had to stop at a couple of check points ourselves 22 years ago or so.
 
there is reasonable and unreasonable amount of documentation. Gilibrand will try to bog down the system even though undocumented people probably wouldn't want to be documented. :)
 
What's the reason for a senator proposing a good solution to a problem?

Has she actually identified/verified a problem that needs a solution or is she fishing for one?

Seriously. I don't know.
 
Has she actually identified/verified a problem that needs a solution or is she fishing for one?

Seriously. I don't know.

I assume it's in response to the kind of sickening videos I posted.
 
But at the cost of hampering the actual enforcement though?
No, that wouldn't be acceptable- you would have to hire more support staff and more agents (and probably not very many agents).
 
I'm sure we'd hear about it if it was actual citizens being harassed . . . if you're within a certain number of miles to a border I'd be shocked if various random folks aren't stopped and checked.

We drove from Flagstaff to San Diego and had to stop at a couple of check points ourselves 22 years ago or so.
I just want there to be a solid layer of accountability.
 
What's the reason for a senator proposing a good solution to a problem? That's pretty much their job. Try to pass it even if you're fighting long odds. Or at least introduce it into the discussion so the seed is planted. See my first comment to you: "No good bill will pass in today's gov't. I don't think that means we should roll over and die." That means, "don't stop doing your job just because there are major obstacles to success at the present time."

You don't understand. Introducing bills that attempt to solve a perceived problem is liberal virtue signalling.
 
Don't support no immigration policy. Europeans immigrated to north American than made laws to stop others doing the same. SMH
 
To you Gillibrand's history of being a strong supporter of a tight border means ... her civil-rights support is a front for her secret plan to undermine border security?

No.

Gillibrand has an extensive history of changing her positions on key issues when doing so suits her political career. In 2006, when she ran in rural NY's conservative 20th District, she campaigned as a conservative/traditionalist with hard right positions on guns and immigration. In 2008 she was appointed to take Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. Within two years her NRA rating dropped from 'A' to 'F'.

In the House, she voted repeatedly for immigration legislation that the current Democratic Leadership is vociferously opposed to (anti-sanctuary city legislation, more detentions and deportations through the SAVE Act) and campaigned against a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Then, upon becoming NY Senator, she dramatically changed her positions.

I'm sure you will agree that, during the upcoming primary races, Gillibrand is very likely to be targeted by people such as Kamala Harris for her previous right-wing views on immigration. In fact, I would be happy to sigbet you that one of Harris, Booker, O'Malley or Sanders will attack Gillibrand on this issue.

Gillibrand knows this. Just three months ago, she appeared on 60 Minutes and claimed to be "embarrassed" about her previous positions. Now she is proposing legislation that will win her credit with the left-wing base on the matter.

I never claim to know anyone's motivations with certainty, but I do believe in being skeptical of politicians. In my view, Gillibrand's most likely reason for introducing this legislation is political.

And you make no assumptions about the bill, but you say repeatedly that it shouldn't be judged on the merits of the ideas discussed

For the fifth time: we shouldn't judge a bill until we have access to the full text.

Isn't that obvious? Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?

I disagree with your assumptions and with your high regard for the reasoning skills of the majority of Congress.

That's a strawman. I never praised the reasoning skills of the majority of Congress. My view is that immigration is an issue that the Trump base is extremely concerned about. Therefore the Gillibrand bill will be scrutinized thoroughly. Most of those Republicans congresspeople who would vote for a bill that contains immigration-related provisions unacceptable to the broad Trump base (for example: provisions that would force ICE/CBP agents to fill out excessive paperwork) would be punished.
 
You also didn't answer if you think it's good that law enforcement pried into the home of a suspected non-violent offender with guns drawn and pointed at children (who, NB, were not suspects) while refusing to show a legal right to enter.

You're much better than this.

First, why would you refer to the target as a "non-violent offender"? According to ICE, he has a battery conviction on his record.

Second, the video does not show guns pointed at children.

Third, there is no federal law requiring ICE agents to display their warrant prior to a search/seizure. In fact, it's often inadvisable to do so.

Fourth, what is your alternative to prying the door open? The family had barricaded themselves inside and a warrant appears to have been issued.

Fifth, this type of raid has been going on for decades, including during the time when Gillibrand was an immigration hardliner. Why do you think Gillibrand is introducing legislation on the matter only now, after serving 10 years in the Senate and one year before the start of her presidential run?


Do you recognize any tension between your belief that law enforcement should be allowed to do their job unfettered and your position on the special counsel?

There are many degrees of fettering. As I have written multiple times in this thread, I would support legislation to require simple records of each ICE stop. That's a positive step toward government accountability and potential protection of civil rights. But if the requirements are burdensome to the point of, say, doubling the time required for the average stop, then I will oppose the legislation.

My position on the special counsel investigation is that Mueller's powers as defined in the Rosenstein order are excessively broad. In particular, item (ii) is infinitely expandable.

You have not presented a specific legal authority possessed by ICE/CBP that you find excessively broad. Therefore there is no basis for comparison here. If you propose a candidate, I will be happy to consider it.
 
No, that wouldn't be acceptable- you would have to hire more support staff and more agents (and probably not very many agents).
The way you have phrased this and other posts suggests that your ulterior belief is ultimately against increased enforcement. Hiring more support staff wont help with anything, as they are not the ones writing the reports. Not sure why you would even suggest that.

I find this disappointing. I thought you were one of the better ones here.. Guess I was wrong. Why you would be anti enforcement is baffling. I'm sure you will deny it, but the phrasing and tone of your posts suggest other wise.
 
I assume it's in response to the kind of sickening videos I posted.
Nothing sickening about agents doing their jobs. Don't want guns pointed at you? To quote Jim Carrey, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!"
 
Nothing sickening about agents doing their jobs. Don't want guns pointed at you? To quote Jim Carrey, "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!"

Wow. Between you and @waiguoren's post, I suspect there's just too big a gulf between authoritarians and liberals to even communicate on the issue. Or maybe it's just that you guys don't see relatives of a suspected unauthorized immigrant as fully human.
 
Last edited:
The way you have phrased this and other posts suggests that your ulterior belief is ultimately against increased enforcement. Hiring more support staff wont help with anything, as they are not the ones writing the reports. Not sure why you would even suggest that.

I find this disappointing. I thought you were one of the better ones here.. Guess I was wrong. Why you would be anti enforcement is baffling. I'm sure you will deny it, but the phrasing and tone of your posts suggest other wise.
Border enforcement has been improving and should keep improving (tech, man-hour efficiency) and immigration is at a low level. We have more pressing concerns.
 
Back
Top