why would anyone vote against Kate's Law?

[Rob Base 2.0]

The story didn't get much traction in the news due to idiot's tweets, but Kate's Law passed the House last week

1 Republican voted against it
and 166 Democrats voted against it

I am not understanding why anyone would vote against it as a standalone bill / issue. So I am interested in any contrarian oppinions.

ETA---here's a good synopsis of the bill:

"Under the bill, if a deported alien reentered the U.S. illegally with a felony conviction or three misdemeanors on their record, he or she would go to prison for up to 10 years. Someone who is caught illegally crossing the border after having been deported three or more times would also serve up to 10 years." (from the below website)

www.washingtonexaminer.com/house-passes-kates-law-to-boost-penalties-against-deported-criminal-aliens-who-reenter-the-us/article/2627506

Denying funding to Sanctuary Cities is a SEPERATE BILL

[Deleted]

Because of the part that denies federal grants to 'sanctuary cities'.

[Shooby]

Because Dems support ILLEGAL immigration.

[Rob Base 2.0]

Jul 3, 2017 9:35:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Because of the part that denies federal grants to 'sanctuary cities'.

but isnt that only IF the cities get caught violating Kate's Law?

[zibazinski]

Jul 3, 2017 10:01:26 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

Jul 3, 2017 9:35:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Because of the part that denies federal grants to 'sanctuary cities'.

but isnt that only IF the cities get caught violating Kate's Law?

They brag about being sanctuary cities.

[zibazinski]

You're here illegally? You have no rights or certainly shouldn't. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 3, 2017 9:35:03 GMT -5 oped said:

Because of the part that denies federal grants to 'sanctuary cities'.

They are breaking federal law. The should be denied federal monies.

[giramomma]

In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks.

People aren't clamoring to take milking jobs in the rural parts of my state for $8/hour. They just aren't. We need that labor from somewhere.

Tourism jobs don't pay a ton of money, either. One tourism hot spot, in particular relies on high school students to work. You can't go to high school and clean hotel rooms at the same time. And, again, most other people in these areas aren't clamoring to clean rooms for  $10 an hour. You need to find workers from somewhere....

So, the question becomes, what's better for the economy? Is it better to:

1) Have improperly documented workers fill the need for low wage workers?
2) Let those jobs go unfilled to the detriment of businesses and consumers?
3) Start increasing pay for the jobs so that people will take them? I'm guessing that if you started paying farmhands $15 or so an hour, you'd probably start to get reliable help. But, yet, I also hear that that's too much money. Paying high wages for low wage work will hurt businesses and consumers.

So, honestly, I think option #1 is really the only real option that doesn't hurt businesses and consumers.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 3, 2017 14:35:57 GMT -5 giramomma said:

In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks.

Do you call drug dealers "improperly documented pharmacists"? 

[swamp]

Jul 3, 2017 14:42:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:35:57 GMT -5 giramomma said:

In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks.

Do you call drug dealers "improperly documented pharmacists"? 

yes.

Actually, we call them street pharmacologists.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 3, 2017 14:45:50 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:42:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Do you call drug dealers "improperly documented pharmacists"? 

yes.

Actually, we call them street pharmacologists.

ha! But I'm assuming when you were with the DA's office that these "street pharmacologists" weren't treated like real, licensed pharmacists but were instead prosecuted.

[swamp]

Jul 3, 2017 14:53:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:45:50 GMT -5 swamp said:

yes.

Actually, we call them street pharmacologists.

ha! But I'm assuming when you were with the DA's office that these "street pharmacologists" weren't treated like real, licensed pharmacists but were instead prosecuted.

generally yes.

I've tried the tactic of "he's just an chemical entrepreneur" as a defense attorney, but that doesn't work very well.

[Shooby]

Jul 3, 2017 14:42:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:35:57 GMT -5 giramomma said:

In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks.

Do you call drug dealers "improperly documented pharmacists"? 

BWAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

[zibazinski]

Jul 3, 2017 15:02:22 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

I think Kate's law and the sanctuary cities act are two separate bills.

Too bad.

[zibazinski]

Jul 3, 2017 14:35:57 GMT -5 giramomma said:

In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks.

People aren't clamoring to take milking jobs in the rural parts of my state for $8/hour. They just aren't. We need that labor from somewhere.

Tourism jobs don't pay a ton of money, either. One tourism hot spot, in particular relies on high school students to work. You can't go to high school and clean hotel rooms at the same time. And, again, most other people in these areas aren't clamoring to clean rooms for  $10 an hour. You need to find workers from somewhere....

So, the question becomes, what's better for the economy? Is it better to:

1) Have improperly documented workers fill the need for low wage workers?
2) Let those jobs go unfilled to the detriment of businesses and consumers?
3) Start increasing pay for the jobs so that people will take them? I'm guessing that if you started paying farmhands $15 or so an hour, you'd probably start to get reliable help. But, yet, I also hear that that's too much money. Paying high wages for low wage work will hurt businesses and consumers.

So, honestly, I think option #1 is really the only real option that doesn't hurt businesses and consumers.

Um, we have people on welfare who are capable of working. We also have prisoners.

[Rob Base 2.0]

And so the thread devolves..........I simply asked for contrarian opinions, not sure why those that agree with Kate's Law are chiming in BEFORE the other side speaks

Why not give them a chance to speak their case before devolving to generalizations, etc......?

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 3, 2017 14:55:33 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:53:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

ha! But I'm assuming when you were with the DA's office that these "street pharmacologists" weren't treated like real, licensed pharmacists but were instead prosecuted.

generally yes.

I've tried the tactic of "he's just an chemical entrepreneur" as a defense attorney, but that doesn't work very well.

lol

[Rob Base 2.0]

For those who don't know, Kate's Law ONLY deals with illegal / undocumented (whatever you prefer) people that commit FELONIES

so it would not prevent "innocent" day laborers or whatever from being here, so I don't understand that argument.....

ETA- also Kate's Law deals ONLY with people who have been PREVIOUSLY deported and return to the US (in addition to trying to be strict on these illegal / undocumented people that commit felonies). 

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 3, 2017 15:13:24 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

For those who don't know, Kate's Law ONLY deals with illegal / undocumented (whatever you prefer) people that commit FELONIES

so it would not prevent "innocent" day laborers or whatever from being here, so I don't understand that argument.....

Then perhaps it is getting voted against for not being strict enough? If someone is here illegally they are committing a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

[Rob Base 2.0]

Jul 3, 2017 15:14:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 3, 2017 15:13:24 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

For those who don't know, Kate's Law ONLY deals with illegal / undocumented (whatever you prefer) people that commit FELONIES

so it would not prevent "innocent" day laborers or whatever from being here, so I don't understand that argument.....

Then perhaps it is getting voted against for not being strict enough? If someone is here illegally they are committing a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

So you are positing that the 166 Democrats that voted against it, wanted it to be stronger?.......

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 3, 2017 15:19:04 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

Jul 3, 2017 15:14:57 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Then perhaps it is getting voted against for not being strict enough? If someone is here illegally they are committing a crime and should be dealt with accordingly.

So you are positing that the 166 Democrats that voted against it, wanted it to be stronger?.......

No...but there was that one republican...

[Green Eyed Lady]

IF I were to vote against Kate's Law, it would be because I wouldn't want to have to pay for the incarceration of the people who would be incarcerated under the proposed law. Our prison system is overcrowded and expensive enough.

Secondly, IF I were to vote against Kate's Law, it would be because I don't think illegally immigrating people are committing the level of crime that deserves imprisonment. 

Those would be 2 reasons why I would vote against it IF I voted against it....which I would not.

[swamp]

Jul 3, 2017 15:13:24 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

For those who don't know, Kate's Law ONLY deals with illegal / undocumented (whatever you prefer) people that commit FELONIES

so it would not prevent "innocent" day laborers or whatever from being here, so I don't understand that argument.....

ETA- also Kate's Law deals ONLY with people who have been PREVIOUSLY deported and return to the US (in addition to trying to be strict on these illegal / undocumented people that commit felonies). 

I'm not familiar with Kate's law, but I do know that illegal immigrants who are housed by NYS Corrections are deported after finishing their sentence.

If an illegal commits a felony and isn't sentenced to prison, the border agents are notified. Sometimes they pick up, sometimes they don't.

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jul 3, 2017 16:06:36 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 3, 2017 15:13:24 GMT -5 Rob Base 2.0 said:

For those who don't know, Kate's Law ONLY deals with illegal / undocumented (whatever you prefer) people that commit FELONIES

so it would not prevent "innocent" day laborers or whatever from being here, so I don't understand that argument.....

ETA- also Kate's Law deals ONLY with people who have been PREVIOUSLY deported and return to the US (in addition to trying to be strict on these illegal / undocumented people that commit felonies). 

I'm not familiar with Kate's law, but I do know that illegal immigrants who are housed by NYS Corrections are deported after finishing their sentence.

If an illegal commits a felony and isn't sentenced to prison, the border agents are notified. Sometimes they pick up, sometimes they don't.

It appears that the man who shot Kate was an illegal immigrant who had already been imprisoned for returning after deportation.  Apparently, there was an outstanding warrant for possession of marijuana so after he was released, he was turned over the to law enforcement agency holding the warrant.  The charges were immediately dismissed and rather than being deported, he was released into the community.  He then shot the young woman.  Sounds like the ball was dropped here in a very tragic way.

[Rob Base 2.0]

Kate's Law- "Kate’s Law, would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States.

Kate's Law, which would increase the penalties for deported aliens who try to return to the United States and caught, passed width a vote of 257 to 157, with one Republican voting no and 24 Democrats voting yes.

Kate's Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman killed by an illegal immigrant who was in the U.S. despite multiple deportations. The two-year anniversary of her death is on Saturday."
[/p]

www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/house-to-vote-on-kate-s-law-as-part-illegal-immigrant-crackdown.html

Denying funding to Sanctuary Cities is a SEPERATE BILL

[zibazinski]

Swift punishment for repeat offenders would take care of this .

[Phoenix84]

Jul 3, 2017 14:42:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:35:57 GMT -5 giramomma said:

In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks.

Do you call drug dealers "improperly documented pharmacists"? 

Or a bank robbery an improperly documented withdrawal?"

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 3, 2017 18:37:44 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:42:15 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Do you call drug dealers "improperly documented pharmacists"? 

Or a bank robbery an improperly documented withdrawal?"

Hahahaha!!

[andi9899]

Jul 3, 2017 15:10:29 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Jul 3, 2017 14:35:57 GMT -5 giramomma said:

In our state, it's no secret that the farm, construction, and hospitality industries run on labor supplied by improperly documented folks.

People aren't clamoring to take milking jobs in the rural parts of my state for $8/hour. They just aren't. We need that labor from somewhere.

Tourism jobs don't pay a ton of money, either. One tourism hot spot, in particular relies on high school students to work. You can't go to high school and clean hotel rooms at the same time. And, again, most other people in these areas aren't clamoring to clean rooms for  $10 an hour. You need to find workers from somewhere....

So, the question becomes, what's better for the economy? Is it better to:

1) Have improperly documented workers fill the need for low wage workers?
2) Let those jobs go unfilled to the detriment of businesses and consumers?
3) Start increasing pay for the jobs so that people will take them? I'm guessing that if you started paying farmhands $15 or so an hour, you'd probably start to get reliable help. But, yet, I also hear that that's too much money. Paying high wages for low wage work will hurt businesses and consumers.

So, honestly, I think option #1 is really the only real option that doesn't hurt businesses and consumers.

Um, we have people on welfare who are capable of working. We also have prisoners.

Not all, but a lot of people on welfare are on it because it's easier than working. Same for disability recipients. And who in their right mind would let prisoners loose on a farm to do farmhand work?

[zibazinski]

They used to work, the prisoners. I'm not talking ax murderers but the dumb stuff like drug busts. Yes, you'd need a guard but just like the road cleaners of today, it's doable.