Story Comments
Posted by: buckncindykill 2 months, 1 week ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
Neutral
buckncindykill2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about........
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/us/politics/06de...-
100%
Progressive2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From your link:
Reply
The cost...would be covered by greater efficiencies in the detention and removal system, which costs $2.4 billion annually to operate and holds about 380,000 people a year.
“The paradigm was wrong,” Ms. Napolitano said of the nation’s patchwork of rented jail space, which has more than tripled in size since 1995, largely through Immigration and Customs Enforcement contracts for cells more restrictive, and expensive, than required for a population that is largely not dangerous. Among those in detention on Sept. 1, 51 percent were considered felons, and of those, 11 percent had committed violent crimes.
“Serious felons deserve to be in the prison model,” Ms. Napolitano said, “but there are others. There are women. There are children.”
These and other nonviolent people should be sorted and detained or supervised in ways appropriate to their level of danger or flight risk, she said. Her goal, she said, is “to make immigration detention more cohesive, accountable and relevant to the entire spectrum of detainees we are dealing with.”-
-
100%
Progressive2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I merely presented the other side of the coin to your previous argument against Napolitano. Do you think it's preferable to keep illegal immigrants' children in prison at the cost of $100 per day rather than $14 per day for alternate detention?
Reply
The reason I call myself Progressive is less about trusting my government and more about my desire for progress benefiting all Americans instead of the partisan gridlock resulting from legislators whose actions are dictated by the corporations who have purchased them.-
Neutral
buckncindykill2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then you must be a little ticked off at Obama for teaming up with big pharmaceutical companies. He expressly made promises to them in the health care debate in exchange for positive press.
Reply
In this case however, it was the legislator who purchased the corporation.-
100%
Progressive2 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I understood that Obama made that deal to gain Big Pharma's support for healthcare reform, though I think he was naive if he thought Big Pharma wouldn't continue to poor more money into the other side--but it's even more naive to suggest any legislator is even capable of purchasing an industry as large as Big Pharma.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment positively. Is it really that bad of a comment?
People Who Didn't Like This Comment (0)
No one voted this comment negatively.
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.