Hypothetical, if ISIS targeted an American High School

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...als-levels-off-fewer-crossing-mexic/?page=all

There are more fences and more guards than ever before.

It doesn't mention those, but it does mention that the numbers aren't diminishing. The flow from Mexico has abated, but that's just because they flat ran out of people to send. Now we're getting tens of thousands from Cuba who are traveling to Central America and then walking into Texas. If they can do it, so can every jihadist on the planet who can get a plane ticket to Latin America.

Obama has also deported more illegal immigrants than any other president.

And as with all charts about the border situation, it ends before Obama decided to throw the doors open after the 2012 election. Heck, back then Obama was still touting Iraq and Libya as his greatest foreign policy successes.

So what happened once the border patrol stopped trying to enforce the border and instead became a bus service to deliver illegals all over the country?

Perhaps, but how many more people are trying to cross compared to years prior, or are successful and get through? In other words if we catch and return 438 that's good, but if 5,000 get through that's not good. And it's not like somebody gets through and then tells us they just got through, so we'll never really know how many did.....or tunneled under.

Yeah. It's a catch and release program at this point. Also, according to ICE stats, back in 2011 or so 67 percent of those being deported had criminal convictions. In 2014 that percentage had risen to 85 percent while deportations were up slightly. Since the number of illegal alien criminals probably didn't just spike, the numbers coming in must have spiked (since there are more criminal deportations in absolute terms). It also indicates that deportations of non-criminals are down. That would be consistent with Obama saying he wasn't going to deport people who aren't criminals.

Not that deporting people who aren't criminals would be a show stopper for them anyway - since some career criminals finally get caught and imprisoned after being deported five times and returning yet again. Fuck it must not be too damn hard to get through. That said, if I get arrested can I just slap on a sombrero, get a fake Mexican ID, and get deported versus going to jail? I could use a free trip to Mexico!

Or it could mean that the concentration on illegal alien criminals spiked which, coincidentally, is what Obama said was going to happen.

I'm not a legal expert (maybe Chup can weigh in here) but if someone breaks the law in your country and you deport them versus incarcerate them, and they return yet again and commit a crime wouldn't common sense dictate incarcerating them? Do other countries just let you keep coming back to commit crimes until you murder someone or is it just a US thing?

I thought we deported them after they served their time?

In other words what has happened is the Administration changed the definitions so they look tougher on the issue but the reality is they aren't any tougher then Bush and if you can make it past 100 miles you're practically home-free.

Throw in Obama's amnesty attempt and it's laughable to claim he's the "deporter in chief"

That would be fair - but only if they served a complete sentence. And States vary on that, so you might serve 5 years, you might get 1 year and probation (AKA 1 year and go back to Mexico if you feel like it, we don't give a shit). Or how about make any felony committed by an illegal a Federal offense since they invaded our nation illegally regardless of which state they live in? Then they have to do the full sentence (or close to it) for their crime. And if they come back after being deported, they get a life sentence. Seem harsh? It might be to give a US citizen a life sentence protected by our Constitution. But they are not, and entered our country illegally, so sorry.

If your psychotic son has a break from reality I doubt he'll have bolt cutters handy. But your point has validity with house breakers. I'm willing to legislate gun safes secured to the house's structure. Of course if they have a chain saw handy this won't stop them.

Don't you think securing firearms is a higher priority than your grandma's doily collection?

If you left your car gun unattended during such an event, yes, I'd say you were liable if it was used in crime later. Otherwise not so much, but thanks for playing.

So who decides the definition of "unattended" or "safely secured?" And not just for guns, but every single enabler used in the crime? Common sense? Yeah, that can't be interpreted differently.
Please enlighten me wise one.

Federal legislature. If you leave a gun unattended in your car and the car and/or gun are stolen; you're liable for the gun's misuse.

If you think the same rules should be applied to cars as guns, I think you're delusional.

Why not? Cars are often used in violent crimes. Drive to a store, rob it, shoot the clerk, and see how quick you never see your car again. The car was used to transport you - it's confiscated and forfeited. Or what about if a car is used to deliberately run somebody over? It shouldn't be considered a deadly weapon? Please explain your thought process.

Obama did change the focus from just deporting everyone to deporting people with criminal records. I guess Volpone got that part right. That said total numbers did spike remarkably as did the number of officers at the border resulting in record numbers of illegals being stopped.

Is that enough? No, I would say it is not enough by half and thst US companies need to face catastrophic fines for hiring illegals and e-verify needs to be put in place. As it is Republicans are protecting companies, they reduced fines and passed a law saying INS can only raid a factory/business once per year even though they know certain companies hire only illegals.

Republicans pander to the red necks about illegal immigration but then, behind the scenes, hamstring efforts and block enforcement. They are just doshonest.

Sorry, you're delusional. Guns ≠ Cars

Holy shit, they can take your car you were in when the hooker gave you a blow job. If you drove a hooker to her john and she is busted.......good bye car. So a car cannot equal a gun when it comes to crime?

Why was my property taken?
The police take property for four reasons:

1. Safekeeping. Valuables such as money, jewelry and furs are often taken from a prisoner to prevent them from being stolen. A prisoner's car is sometimes impounded to keep it safe while he is in custody. Property taken for safekeeping will be returned upon presentation of the voucher and proper identification.
2. Forfeiture. Property may be seized and held by the police because they believe it was used or obtained while committing a crime. The police may permanently keep or sell property if they can prove in a civil court that it was unlawfully used or obtained. The police have been seizing for forfeiture:
   • Cars driven by a drunk or reckless driver or without a valid driver's license, or used to obtain drugs or the services of a prostitute, or that contain a loaded gun. Cars used in these crimes may be seized even if the owner of the car was not arrested for the offense.
   • Money that was exchanged for drugs, or that was intended to be exchanged for drugs, or used in gambling.
   • Merchandise that was sold on the street without a vendor's license.
   • Tools or Equipment that were used to break into a car or building or to sell drugs. This may include a beeper or mobile phone that was possessed for communication during a crime http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent_crimes/assault-with-deadly-weapon.htm

OK ok, you're right. Cars = Guns. If you have no problem with registration, inspections, taxes, mandated liability insurance, a plethora of laws and required exams in order to own and operate a car you should have no problem with similar restrictions on guns.

God above, can we put that stupid cars/guns thing to rest? Driving is a state-regulated privilege. Owning a firearm is a Constitutionally-recognized fundamental right. The two are not comparable at all.

I've pointed it out repeatedly, but the majority of those restrictions only apply to cars if you're going to drive them on public roads.

I wouldn't have a problem with the similar restrictions applying to firearms that are carried in public. In fact, several of them already do (written and practical exams, for example).

Any car built has to adhere to safety standards whether it's driven on public roads or not.

And Lanz, open up your Lens: OF'62 is yapping about guns'n cars being the same. I'm arguing they are not. Guns are a greater threat and should be regulated accordingly. Although you could argue convincingly that cars cause more deaths and should be legislated out of existence.

Yet you can buy government surplus Humvees that are explicitly prohibited from highway use by the DOT. Offroad use only.

Combines too. I thought we were talking cars.

Me buying a gun and only using it on private property is no different AFAIC.

If only there were a way to decrease the likelihood that it would be taken off your property without your knowledge