Interesting how quickly they began arresting people.

So they knew all along where these illegals were, but refused to do their job.

Interesting how quickly they began arresting people.

So they knew all along where these illegals were, but refused to do their job.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Interesting how quickly they began arresting people.

So they knew all along where these illegals were, but refused to do their job.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I suspect it wasn't that they didn't want to work rather they were told not to focus on that. I think what we are seeing is more like taking the handcuffs off the agents and allowing them to do their job.

meanwhile in other countries this is how they deal with illegal "migrants"

Love it!😊 Bodies can be used as fertilizer!

Following orders to not detain/make an arrest. It's obvious that the intel was done, so the process began.  So I stand by my claim, "refused to do their job".

No one wants to disobey orders and get fired from a government job. (figure of speech used for the "no one wants to" part).

Their job is to follow orders as well. If their bosses tell them not to go arrest illegal aliens and they comply then they are not refusing to do their job.

Their job is to follow orders as well. If their bosses tell them not to go arrest illegal aliens and they comply then they are not refusing to do their job.

Superior orders, also known as just following orders or the
Nuremberg defense, is a plea in a court of law that a person, whether
civilian, military or police, should not be considered guilty of committing
crimes ordered by a superior officer or official.[1][2] It is regarded as a
complement to command responsibility.

Under the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal that
established them, the trials determined that the defense of superior
orders was no longer enough to escape punishment but merely
enough to lessen it.

swooosh.

***update

Do u have any proof of your "if their bosses told them to not to go arrest illegals?".  Or are you making another whataboutism just to argue?

     The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It states:

        "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."


    The oath that every person who becomes a 'Public Servant' in elected office, their appointees, members of the military, and every government employee is obligated to take on their own free will to represent the United States and its citizens, is that they swear:

        "...to the best of my ability, ‘Support, Preserve, Protect and Defend’ the Constitution of the United States..."

You want me to prove a hypothetical conditional statement? 

It doesn't negate orders though. If Trump were to order the DOJ and DEA to stop prosecuting marijuana cases should the DEA agents disregard that and still arrest people for marijuana because it is still the law? If Trump tells the ATF to stop enforcing bump stock cases are you going to be upset that the ATF agents don't enforce the law?

An executive order to not enforce a law is much different than an executive order to violate a law.

Yes. Or else don't give the hypothetical.

What if their bosses told them to arrest the illegals on August 21st 2025 due to man power shortages. See I can make up stuff too, but I'll guess you will think that my what if isn't good enough.

Wow on the examples. Hahahhahah too. I'll let u figure out why.

So you don't believe in "if then" statements? The issue was whether they were complying with orders or whether they were being lazy. Since none of us know which one is the case the only way we can discuss it is to say "if they were complying with orders then..." or "if they were being lazy then...."