build a wall. You answered your own question. Not only will it physically work but it will deter thousands from even trying. Nothing in this world will ever be perfect , but a wall is the obvious answer. Also using Obama's term that he lied about ; it presents literally hundreds of high paying SHOVEL ready jobs.
People cause accidental deaths every day and unless we (the state) is able to prove that there was intent or reckless malice we don't put the person that caused the accident in jail. You see, details matter.
You are doing exactly what the prosecution did, trying to make a circumstantial case.
You do realize that his nationality, legal status or prior record were not allowed to be brought into the trial because they had zero to do with the facts of this case. His "multi felon" record was for illegal entry into the US (multiple) and a marijuana charge. Not exactly Charles Manson or El Chopo.
Actually, it's very likely that at least one of his prior convictions had a bit to do with the "facts of the case". Since he was convicted of a felon in possession of weapon charge, it's kind of relevant that he was, in fact, a felon. Otherwise, this particular charge never gets brought in the first place. At a minimum, there would be some sort of stipulation that he is prohibited from having a firearm. So, that's considered as being "brought into the trial". So, again, you are popping off on legal issues on which you know very little.
I'm not going to pretend that have detailed knowledge of this case, and neither should you- you apparently don't even realize that the existence of a prior felony is a necessary element to prove a felon in possession of weapon charge. When you state that "there were obviously holes in this case", you don't know that for a fact. You don't know, for a fact, that a jury didn't simply nullify the facts presented to arrive at a verdict that it believed to be appropriate for political or emotional reasons. I don't know that they did. I do know that such things can happen, and so do you. It used to happen all of the time in the Deep South back in the 50's and 60's. The problem in your case, is that while you can easily agree that this was a common occurrence back then, in that place, is that ideological blinders, due to your political fanaticism and utter lack of objectivity, make it impossible for you to consider even the possibility that it occurred here, in this particular case. There are certainly legal commentators with knowledge of the law far greater than yours (and, no, I'm not talking about the President), who seem to have suggested this as a strong possibility. I'm not. In this particular case, I don't know. What I am saying is that you don't have a clue, either.
Nah, we aren’t talking about religion this time.
Wonder what your suggestion would be for the Vegas shooter...58 people could still be alive if......?
We can do things to lessen the chance. Like securing our boarder. Would you agree or disagree that there is a huge incentive to come to the United States if you have nothing? From say drug lord infested Mexico? Would you think to yourself, "you know if I get my kids across I can get government assistance from the United States and we won't be deported."
How about guns? What could we do to "lessen the chance" of people blowing others away?
Respectfully why do you change the subject to guns? I'm talking about people, who may not have any skills clogging available resources. Why does the United States owe it to the world to take care of everyone? It is literally like not even remotely possible. In any way at all.
There was already a law that should have kept him out of the country so, no laws banning guns would keep guns from the hands of people who want to get their hands on them. Yes, I understand that that was not the case here but, it will be for anyone who really wants a gun to kill. This case should have at least been manslaughter and that is part of what has people up in arms.
There are plenty of laws to keep guns out of the hands of prior criminals, but they still get them. Both situations are identical - our "laws" for each fail and fail regularly. Illegals get back in - laws or no laws - and criminals get guns - laws or no laws. So logically making both "laws" tougher should, in theory, at least reduce the recurrence of these two problems (neither will ever fully eliminate them).
To add... the gun that killed Ms Steinle had belonged to a govt agent (forget the agency) who had been issued a lock for the gun but failed to it. It was policy that the lock be applied when the agent wasn't on duty. He wasn't on duty when his car window was smashed and a backpack holding the loaded gun that did not have a safety was taken. If the lock had been applied there is a good chance Ms Steinle would still be alive.
Not hypocritical at all. You either do not understand what many are saying or, you are being disingenuous. No one wants to stop immigration just stop the flow of illegal, immigration. Also, you must have missed all of the reports of millions spent on illegals living off of the government dime.
Yes, people write reports to convey the message they are trying to sell. Where in those reports are the offsets for the additional money these immigrants bring in? They pay rent, purchase essentials, pay taxes. If they bring children those reports will accrue cost to educate their children, much of which is not true cost.
