What a novel idea, allowing those who have been victimized by those who are unlawfully present in the U.S. to track what’s going on
(Fox News) Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly announced on Wednesday the official launch of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s office for victims of illegal immigrant crime, and a program to help track the custody status of violent, illegal perpetrators.
ICE’s Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office (VOICE) was created in response to President Trump’s executive order to enhance public safety, which directed the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to support victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens.
“All crime is terrible, but these victims are unique — and often too ignored,†Kelly said on Wednesday. “They are casualties of crimes that should never have taken place — because the people who victimized them often times should not have been in the country in the first place.â€
Kelly outlined objectives of VOICE, including a “victim-centered approach†to support victims and their families, along with promoting awareness of available services to crime victims, such as the new automated service, DHS-Victim Information and Notification Exchange, which was created to help victims track the immigration custody status of those illegal alien perpetrators of crime.
Part of this is to make sure the victims are kept in the loop on enforcement and deportation status of the illegal(s) who victimized them.
Even before it was officially announced, the editorial board of the USA Today was having a hissy fit. You can bet the ranch that more leftists will come out against supporting victims of illegal alien crime in favor of the illegal aliens committing the crimes.
This is not a bad idea! Tracking crime. But we understand the motive of the trumpitistas.
But clumsy Kelly says – “They are casualties of crimes that should never have taken place…”
as opposed to crimes that should have taken place…
It is a fact that unlawfully present aliens commit crime at a LOWER rate than US citizens! Why do conservatives excuse crimes committed by US citizens?
This is completely false and you know it.
But it does sound as if you want to excuse crimes committed by a certain group.
Do they, little guy.
Please elaborate.
Then it would make sense to have an office for victims of all federal crimes, not just those of immigrants.
In what way?
Otherwise, you’re making one class of victims more worthy of attention than another class of victims. Other than for political advantage, why would you do that?
Thought you said it would make sense.
Make sense to y’all?
Other than for political advantage, why would creating a separate class of victims make sense?
Hey, the did it for blacks, homosexuals, women, etc. for political purposes.
A US citizen mugger cannot be removed from the country no matter how much we hope it would be so, and illegal invader can be removed and banned from the country.
Anti-discrimination laws protect whites and blacks, heterosexuals and homosexuals, men and women.
And creates a seperate “class” of victims.
See the Oregon bakers…
Civil rights laws are crafted to protect all classes based on race, sexual orientation, and sex.
It sure didn’t protect the cakemakers in Oregon among others.
Guess y’all don’t understand the concept of “protected classes”.
Sure we do. It’s illegal to discriminate against homosexuals or heterosexuals because of their sexual orientation.
Religious beliefs are not special then.
It would also be illegal for the cake-makers to discriminate against someone because of their religion or lack of religion.
So the 1st amendment is a crock of shit then, you know the part about the free exercise thereof.
You are free to form a private club for racists, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobes. However, the 14th Amendment granted Congress the power to enforce equal protection of the laws. When you are open to the public for business, you can’t discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. So, yes, you have to serve Jews.
Negros too?
Whites too. If you operate a public accommodation in the U.S., then you can’t legally discriminate against someone because of their race, creed, religion, or sex.
Does the 1st Amendment protect a pharmacist who, for religious reasons, won’t dispense life saving drugs to a homosexual?
Does it protect a Muslim ER physician who refuses to treat Christians that she considers infidels?
Is a Christian Scientist, who prays while his child dies from an infection treatable with antibiotics, protected by the 1st Amendment?
Do religious “rights” trump all other rights?
Why not, little guy?