Governor's Race

[shu09]

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any discussion about it on this board. It seems like Murphy has it locked up, but I suppose you never know.

What are your thoughts? I don't think either candidate is great, but Guadagno seems more trustworthy and won't raise taxes. That's who I'll be voting for. To me, Murphy is Corzine all over again. A super wealthy opportunist who will spend the state into oblivion.

When is the last time this state had a good governor? I honestly can't remember one.

 

[SPK145]

Christie term 3 vs. Corzine term 2.

Wouldn’t vote for either, it just encourages the bastards.

 

[HALL85]

Rohrman

 

[shu09]

Rohrman

Certainly understandable. I voted third party for Governor in 2009.

This time around though, I feel a third party vote is simply a vote for Murphy considering he is the overwhelming favorite. The only thing that can stop him is independent/unaffiliated voters breaking for Guadagno.

 

[HALL85]

Certainly understandable. I voted third party for Governor in 2009.

This time around though, I feel a third party vote is simply a vote for Murphy considering he is the overwhelming favorite. The only thing that can stop him is independent/unaffiliated voters breaking for Guadagno.

I can respect that as well...as a rule, I never criticize someone's choices (except any idiot that would re-elect DiBlasio...lol). Guadagno is the "least worst" of the two, but I'm in the boat of vote my conscious and hopefully enough people start running away from two bad candidates to make strong independents viable.

 

[Section112]

Not happy about the candidates again. To put it politely Murphy is not a nice guy - from two of my friends that work for or did work at Goldman. Have to go vote now and will probably vote for Kim. Not a bad person but also she is not a strong politician. She agreed to the Christie muzzle on during her term which does not look good for her. Probably the Dem gets elected in NJ but this guy totally bought his way in with his Corzine II approach of sending lots of money in the last few years to Dem politicians and inner city churches etc. No other Dems put up a fight at all to go against a political rival that has never been a politician before? Doesn't that seem odd? It's only odd because he has tons of money and was ready to use it and no one wanted to compete with that. Sad what we have become.

 

[cernjSHU]

Did we forget Guadagno's role in telling Hoboken's mayor that Sandy funds were contingent on approving a redevelopment project that happened to be a client of David Sampson??? Anyone connected to Christie should not get their turn at the helm. Plain and simple.

 

[NYShoreGuy]

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any discussion about it on this board. It seems like Murphy has it locked up, but I suppose you never know.

What are your thoughts? I don't think either candidate is great, but Guadagno seems more trustworthy and won't raise taxes. That's who I'll be voting for. To me, Murphy is Corzine all over again. A super wealthy opportunist who will spend the state into oblivion.

When is the last time this state had a good governor? I honestly can't remember one.

Kim was never given a real chance just vote for party opposite of christie the public are like sports fans very fickle

 

[NYShoreGuy]

Maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen any discussion about it on this board. It seems like Murphy has it locked up, but I suppose you never know.

What are your thoughts? I don't think either candidate is great, but Guadagno seems more trustworthy and won't raise taxes. That's who I'll be voting for. To me, Murphy is Corzine all over again. A super wealthy opportunist who will spend the state into oblivion.

When is the last time this state had a good governor? I honestly can't remember one.

I am willing to say this will be the lowest registered voter turnout in modern nj history

 

[SnakeTom]

Two poor candidates. Neither addressed solutions to the financial mess that the state finds itself in. I do not like candidates with no record to speak of and just come in to buy an election. In that respect he is another Corzine. Let's just hope that he is a better Governor than Corzine was.

PS: Our last good Governor was Richard Codey but he was only in office for little over one year. Before that we may have to go all the way back to Dick Hughes.

Tom K

 

[Section112]

Tom Kean was a good Governor. Codey wasn’t bad.

 

[SnakeTom]

Tom Kean was a good Governor. Codey wasn’t bad.

Tom Kean was a good Governor and great spokesperson for New Jersey, but New Jersey's deficit problems started during his administration.

TK

 

[Hall-line-forever]

Well, sanctuary everything. Your taxes go up, businesses leave, and you can smoke your dope even more. What a wonderful world!!

 

[cernjSHU]

Well, sanctuary everything. Your taxes go up, businesses leave, and you can smoke your dope even more. What a wonderful world!!

Sanctuary cities is the most misunderstood term. There is no such thing as an illegal committing a crime and then being shielded due to sanctuary city status. If an illegal does a crime, he goes to jail and then is deported. Period. Nothing can prevent that. What some towns want to do is to enforce immigration laws. This is where some people want local police to round up illegals for immigration deportation. This would be a horrendous idea and action. Even Chris Christie as US Attorney was against this.

Why? Because law enforcement wants the illegals to talk to them as victims of crimes and witnesses without the fear of being deported. That is why illegals are targeted as victims because many will not go to the police to report it. So law enforcement does not care about their legal status. They care about information they can provide. This is a good thing.

SF took a very radical view on not enforcing immigration laws. Customs brought that defendant to SF because of charges there. Immigration filed a detainer on the defendant. For whatever reason, SF dropped the charges. SF did not recognize immigration’s detainer as legal. Therefore, after awaiting some time to see if there were an arrest or warrant for the defendant, they released him. He subsequently killed that woman. While I am in agreement of not having local and state police enforce immigration laws, to ignore a detainer lodged against him is a travesty. NJ would never do that, nor should any city or state.

 

[shu09]

Sanctuary cities is the most misunderstood term. There is no such thing as an illegal committing a crime and then being shielded due to sanctuary city status. If an illegal does a crime, he goes to jail and then is deported. Period. Nothing can prevent that. What some towns want to do is to enforce immigration laws. This is where some people want local police to round up illegals for immigration deportation. This would be a horrendous idea and action. Even Chris Christie as US Attorney was against this.

The point is to PREVENT them from committing the crime by not allowing them "sanctuary" status. Try telling what you said above to the family of a murder or rape victim. That doesn't do anything for them. The point is to prevent the crime from happening in the first place.

Finally, a proactive policy rather than a reactive policy. America is such a reactionary society that many preventable things sadly, are not prevented. Then we overreact after the fact.

 

[cernjSHU]

The point is to PREVENT them from committing the crime by not allowing them "sanctuary" status. Try telling what you said above to the family of a murder or rape victim. That doesn't do anything for them. The point is to prevent the crime from happening in the first place.

Finally, a proactive policy rather than a reactive policy. America is such a reactionary society that many preventable things sadly, are not prevented. Then we overreact after the fact.

Preventing the crime? What do you think sanctuary status is? Can you define that? Are you really saying that no illegals should be here and that prevents the crime? I don’t understand what you mean.

 

[Pirata]

PA - 6% sales tax with zero on clothing.

Most townships have 1% Income tax,cities have more.

Our estate tax sucks but a good attorney can mitigate that.

The biggest problem is the lack of good Italian restaurants and the insufferable Penn State fans.

 

[shu09]

Preventing the crime? What do you think sanctuary status is? Can you define that? Are you really saying that no illegals should be here and that prevents the crime? I don’t understand what you mean.

It helps to prevent crime by not allowing them "sanctuary" status. In a perfect world, there would be no illegals here. Obviously that isn't realistic at this point.

 

[cernjSHU]

It helps to prevent crime by not allowing them "sanctuary" status. In a perfect world, there would be no illegals here. Obviously that isn't realistic at this point.

So you think local police when they encounter an illegal, they should lock them up so they can be deported?

Illegals will be here one way or the other. Remember that 50% of illegals are those that overstay their visas. So even if you had perfect border control, you will have illegals.

I have no idea how you think being a sanctuary city or state or not being a sanctuary city or state prevents crime. It doesn't.

Most if not at all municipalities in NJ do not enforce immigration laws. We are presently a sanctuary state for all practical purposes. We do not pick up an illegals and hand them over to ICE unless they commit a crime.

Now that being said, most law enforcement want illegals to be forthcoming and talk to the police. That is why local police do not act like an arm for ICE. Otherwise, they will just go underground and make it more difficult to investigate serious crimes.

 

[shu09]

So you think local police when they encounter an illegal, they should lock them up so they can be deported?

I don't believe local police should be actively looking for them, but when they do encounter them in an official capacity they should be reported to ICE. From there, ICE should do as it sees fit, within the laws of our country.

 

[cernjSHU]

I don't believe local police should be actively looking for them, but when they do encounter them in an official capacity they should be reported to ICE. From there, ICE should do as it sees fit, within the laws of our country.

Let’s play this out. An illegal is a witness to a murder or whatever crime. You want the police who is acting in their official capacity when they encounter them as a witness to report them to ICE so that they can now be deported by ICE. Then the case that the locals just solved is over and dismissed and a real criminal walks free. Well at least he is an American criminal.

By that policy that you want, there would be an all out crime wave against illegals since if they do report the crime to the police, they will be deported. So how about that American Justice, you are a victim of a crime, you report it to the police, then you get deported. Meanwhile, the criminal who committed the crime goes free.

What about the “dreamers” scenario? A kid who was illegally brought to this county as a one year old. Knows no other country but the US. They are all American except for a piece of paper. This person gets ticketed for jaywalking, or a noise complaint by an officer. You want this person reported to ICE so he can be deported?

This whole uproar about sanctuary cities is nonsense and much ado about nothing. If an illegal commits a crime, he goes to jail and gets deported. That is how it is in sanctuary cities and non sanctuary cities. There is no difference. I will say the Democrats just don’t know how to explain this issue clearly.

 

[shu09]

Let’s play this out. An illegal is a witness to a murder or whatever crime. You want the police who is acting in their official capacity when they encounter them as a witness to report them to ICE so that they can now be deported by ICE. Then the case that the locals just solved is over and dismissed and a real criminal walks free. Well at least he is an American criminal.

By that policy that you want, there would be an all out crime wave against illegals since if they do report the crime to the police, they will be deported. So how about that American Justice, you are a victim of a crime, you report it to the police, then you get deported. Meanwhile, the criminal who committed the crime goes free.

What about the “dreamers” scenario? A kid who was illegally brought to this county as a one year old. Knows no other country but the US. They are all American except for a piece of paper. This person gets ticketed for jaywalking, or a noise complaint by an officer. You want this person reported to ICE so he can be deported?

This whole uproar about sanctuary cities is nonsense and much ado about nothing. If an illegal commits a crime, he goes to jail and gets deported. That is how it is in sanctuary cities and non sanctuary cities. There is no difference. I will say the Democrats just don’t know how to explain this issue clearly.

What the heck are you talking about? Why are you assuming that illegals constantly witness serious felonies like murder? An illegal, just like any person, is far more likely to encounter law enforcement during a routine traffic stop, domestic dispute, theft, etc.

Why are you assuming an criminal would go unpunished? The information, even in your crazy scenario, is still of value to law enforcement.

With the "dreamers," there you go again twisting what I said. I didn't say ICE should deport them, I said ICE should do what it sees fit within the law. If the law says the "dreamers" stay, then they stay.

I get that you have to twist your argument to make it fit, but seriously?

 

[cernjSHU]

What the heck are you talking about? Why are you assuming that illegals constantly witness serious felonies like murder? An illegal, just like any person, is far more likely to encounter law enforcement during a routine traffic stop, domestic dispute, theft, etc.

Why are you assuming an criminal would go unpunished? The information, even in your crazy scenario, is still of value to law enforcement.

With the "dreamers," there you go again twisting what I said. I didn't say ICE should deport them, I said ICE should do what it sees fit within the law. If the law says the "dreamers" stay, then they stay.

I get that you have to twist your argument to make it fit, but seriously?

You don't get it. You obviously do not know how law enforcement works or the court system works. If you do not have a witness live in court to testify, whatever information that he gave to the police is worthless and cannot be used if he cannot testify. That is how you prove a case. Prosecutors use illegals as witnesses quite often in court cases. This is not some 1 in a million scenario.

Illegals are viewed by many criminals as the perfect victims to rob because of their reluctance to go to the police to report crime. On the streets it is called "papi hunting." Law Enforcement has spent years trying to go into these communities to ensure them that they should be comfortable to come talk to the police and report crimes either as witnesses or victims. They have assured them, that the police do not care about whether they are legal or not in this country.

So, you want to destroy the trust that is being built by law enforcement with illegals by having the police report to ICE so that they can deport them on a motor vehicle infraction. Btw, why do illegals witness crime, because many of them live in high crime neighborhoods. And just because they live in high crime neighborhoods, doesn't make them criminals.

 

[Pirata]

I think I understand it now.

The police should not arrest anyone who has a witnessed a crime.

We should ignore immigration laws because immigrants are often victims and we need other immigrants as witnesses.

As Chauncey Gardener said, "I understand Eve".

 

[Pirata]

On another note, I sat up close at a speaking event at a University last night.

Jeb Bush spoke and took some Q&A.

2,000 in the audience, a mix of left and right, dems and reps, young and old.

Jeb was much more dynamic than what we saw in the debates. He is genuine guy. Has a good sense of humor. Confident but humble.

I missed the VIP cocktail hour and dinner but those who made it enjoyed speaking with him in that setting.

He touched on immigration in his remarks. Basic message was that we need a sound policy to foster growth. He favored merit based (STEM emphasis) vs family based.

He spoke a bit about the impending shift/loss of jobs due to disruptive technologies like AI, RPA, etc. He was disdainful of Washington. Suggested one way to improve our lives is to tune out Washington for week. He said to effect that it is a circus, regardless of which side your are on.

Dumb me, I never knew his name was John Ellis Bush. That is where the Jeb comes from.

 

[cernjSHU]

I think I understand it now.

The police should not arrest anyone who has a witnessed a crime.

We should ignore immigration laws because immigrants are often victims and we need other immigrants as witnesses.

As Chauncey Gardener said, "I understand Eve".

You guys have missed the point completely. The issue about Sanctuary cities and states is a non-issue. NJ is essentially a sanctuary state. However, that still means that an illegal who commits a crime goes to jail and the gets deported.

Second, you want to debate the issue of using local police as enforcing immigration laws is another thing. I do not believe that local police should be doing that. First, we pay property taxes to enforce state and local laws, not Federal. I have explained the reasons why local law enforcement do not want to enforce and be an arm of ICE. If you disagree, so be it.

Moreover, those 50% of illegals that overstayed their Visa is not a crime at all. It is violation.

Those 50% of illegals that cross borders are not committing a misdemeanor offense.

Btw, Pirata, are you advocating that police should arrest people who witness crimes who are illegals?

 

[Pirata]

Btw, Pirata, are you advocating that police should arrest people who witness crimes who are illegals?

You said it best.

You guys have missed the point completely.

 

[Pirata]

Cern, you are bringing up good points that the immigration status of an individual can vary greatly and that we should not treat it with a broad brush.

I guess it comes down to a matter of left and right leanings and our inability to try to understand the others viewpoint.

I get frustrated when I get into a discussion about immigration and someone throws out the snarky, "so you are saying you want to tear families apart".

I suspect you get frustrated when you bring up immigration and someone says, "so you want to just ignore our laws and allow felons to go free".

Of course we are both saying neither.

In principle, I would like to see:

• our borders secured more than they are now.
  
• people enter this country legally which includes doing so at an official entry point and carrying the proper credentials.
• people who are here illegally and who commit felonies are deported.
• a path for citizenship for those who are here illegal but have demonstrated that they can contribute to our society. That path should not be a free pass.
• our immigration polices geared to attracting people who will contribute and not people who will drain.

 

[knowknow456]

In principle, I would like to see:

• our borders secured more than they are now.
  
• people enter this country legally which includes doing so at an official entry point and carrying the proper credentials.
• people who are here illegally and who commit felonies are deported.
• a path for citizenship for those who are here illegal but have demonstrated that they can contribute to our society. That path should not be a free pass.
• our immigration polices geared to attracting people who will contribute and not people who will drain.

I agree with each of the above points

Separately immigration policy is a Federal function and policing is mostly a local function. If a person is here illegally but not breaking the law I am ok with police leaving those people alone. States rights should control here.

 

[Merge]

• our borders secured more than they are now.

• people enter this country legally which includes doing so at an official entry point and carrying the proper credentials.

• people who are here illegally and who commit felonies are deported.

• a path for citizenship for those who are here illegal but have demonstrated that they can contribute to our society. That path should not be a free pass.

• our immigration polices geared to attracting people who will contribute and not people who will drain.

I'm on board. I think a bill with just those bullet points would have broad public support. It seems so simple but the frustrating part for me on this issue is that your 4th bullet makes that a non-starter for too many on the right and it would be difficult, if not impossible in our current political environment for your points to become law.

 

[shu09]

The criteria set by Pirata is largely acceptable, but I just cannot support a "path to citizenship." We should not be rewarding, with US citizenship of all things, people who broke the law.

Many millions of legal immigrants did it the right way and earned their citizenship. This would be a slap in the face to those people.

 

[Pirata]

Hell just froze over! We have some agreement. Lol

All kidding aside I think the path to citizenship bullet is a non-starter for SOME on the right.

It comes back to my point that the typical reaction you get by the far-right people is that they think the far-left equates Path to Amnesty.

While that may be true for some on the far left i don't think it represents the views of the majority of the left.

My sense is that the mainstream left and the mainstream right would likely agree that a reasonable path to citizenship for many situations is a good thing. For some reason we get into arguments and always debate the far ends of the situations as opposed to the majority of the situations.

 

[Pirata]

Entering this country illegally is a misdemeanor.

Entering this country illegally after you've been deported is a felony.

Logic and for that matter legal precedent would dictate that we should not treat the misdemeanor the same as the felony.

Having more secure borders would reduce the number of initial misdemeanors.

 

[Pirata]

Example 1: someone enters the country illegally for the first time. The path should be that they are return to an immigration Authority. Likely pay a fine, begin the legal process of applying for citizenship. If they can pass through that process properly then they should have gave citizenship.

Example 2: someone enters the country illegally for the first time. They commit a crime while in the country illegally. Their their path would entail answering for the crime in our legal system and we can go from there. While answering for the crime they would not necessarily be afforded the same rights as a citizen because they are not a citizen.

We can go on and on but the examples but to Cern's point, we need to distinguish between violations, misdemeanor crimes, and felony crimes.

 

[Merge]

The criteria set by Pirata is largely acceptable, but I just cannot support a "path to citizenship." We should not be rewarding, with US citizenship of all things, people who broke the law.

Many millions of legal immigrants did it the right way and earned their citizenship. This would be a slap in the face to those people.

I respect your view, but there is literally no way to move forward without it and we will continue to have the same debate over and over again.

I am not for a broad brush of amnesty where we just grant green cards for everyone here as of X date.
They need to register and work to meet specific requirements and it shouldn't be easy. They should have to work for it.

 

[Merge]

Entering this country illegally is a misdemeanor.

Entering this country illegally after you've been deported is a felony.

Logic and for that matter legal precedent would dictate that we should not treat the misdemeanor the same as the felony.

Having more secure borders would reduce the number of initial misdemeanors.

There is compromise within your posts that both parties should be working towards.
I'll be happy to pay for the wall provided a path for citizenship is available for those that are here currently.

Seems like that should be a slam dunk for Trump.

 

[Pirata]

I think it's more accurate to say that it should be a slam dunk for the president and the Congress

 

[Pirata]

I'll be happy to pay for the wall provided a path for citizenship is available for those that are here currently.

I agree, but with the qualification that the path considers violations, msdemeanors, and felonies accordingly.

 

[cernjSHU]

Cern, you are bringing up good points that the immigration status of an individual can vary greatly and that we should not treat it with a broad brush.

I guess it comes down to a matter of left and right leanings and our inability to try to understand the others viewpoint.

I get frustrated when I get into a discussion about immigration and someone throws out the snarky, "so you are saying you want to tear families apart".

I suspect you get frustrated when you bring up immigration and someone says, "so you want to just ignore our laws and allow felons to go free".

Of course we are both saying neither.

In principle, I would like to see:

• our borders secured more than they are now.
  
• people enter this country legally which includes doing so at an official entry point and carrying the proper credentials.
• people who are here illegally and who commit felonies are deported.
• a path for citizenship for those who are here illegal but have demonstrated that they can contribute to our society. That path should not be a free pass.
• our immigration polices geared to attracting people who will contribute and not people who will drain.

I think your points are fair. Your third point is in effect now and has been in effect forcefully since 9/11. I think the first point is what everyone would want. However, reality makes this so difficult. Even building a wall across the entire border does not accomplish much. There are tunnels controlled by the Mexican mafia all through out the border at this point in time. I wish we had some way of securing it. Hopefully, technology will advance to the point this can happen. But it is not reality at this time.

I do not understand why the fourth is an issue. However, it is. People on the right do not even want kids who were brought to this country illegally with no fault of their wont become a citizen. These people are American in culture and in every way but documentation. I know an American couple who brought an infant from Uruguay to the US illegal. They never formally adopted her because they brought her in illegally. When she was 18 she wanted a driver's license and SS number. When she applied, she was caught as someone who entered the country illegally and was facing deportation proceedings. This was at least a decade ago. Thankfully, this was worked out with some legal fiction. These are incredibly difficult issues.

But, the hysteria about sanctuary cities and states is overblown. .

 

[Bobbie Solo]

I do not understand why the fourth is an issue. However, it is. .

Oh I understand. It’s bc a large segment of the people that think it’s issue are racist and just don’t want the brown people here. They know they can’t say that openly, so they hide behind the rule of law & the intricacies of our inmigration law, but we all know the real reason. Not saying it’s everyone, but it’s def a major part. That’s why Trump took hold of it as his core issue, bc he needed that sort of identity politics to play for him to gain traction in the primaries.