Laken Riley Act passes the USS; now it goes back to the HOR

[Diogenes]

The Senate has passed the Laken Riley Act, 64-35.

The bill will be sent back to the Republican-led House for another vote, where it is expected to pass easily before going to Felonious Trump's desk to become law.

 

[christiefan915]

@Diogenes One law professor says:

SIMON: Current laws allow for detention in violent cases like rape and murder. You say that extending that to allegations of theft or burglary, which the Laken Riley Act does is, quote, "likely to impede genuine crime-fighting efforts more than they help them." How so?

SOMIN: Well, this potentially could lead to vast wastage of law enforcement resources on people who pose little or no threat to public safety and predictably diverts those resources away from combating real crime.

SIMON: You argue in this piece that it would give the police and other law enforcement officials - I think you - believe your phrase is perverse incentives.

SOMIN: Yes. Normally, state and local prosecutors and police try not to arrest and prosecute people unless there is a high chance of securing a conviction. But in this situation, if police or prosecutors arrest or accuse an undocumented immigrant of theft, even if the accusation has little or no basis, that leads to mandatory detention by the federal government. So Officials who are nativists or cater to nativist or anti-immigrant public opinion in their area can essentially use this to detain people who probably have not committed any crime and there's no real evidence against them, and the detention would be paid for by the federal government. So it's like a free lunch for nativists, local government law enforcement officials.

https://www.npr.org/2025/01/11/nx-s1-5254134/legal-expert-says-the-bipartisan-laken-riley-act-is-unjust-wasteful-and-a-trojan-horse

 

[Diogenes]

One law professor says...

Pfft.

 

[christiefan915]

Pfft.

Genetic fallacy activated.

 

[Diogenes]

Genetic fallacy activated.

Think so?

The genetic fallacy is a logical error where an argument is dismissed or accepted based on its origin or history rather than its actual merit. Here's how it typically works:

• Dismissing an argument because of where it comes from: For example, rejecting a scientific theory because it was initially proposed by someone with a controversial reputation, rather than evaluating the evidence and reasoning behind the theory itself.
• Accepting an argument for similar reasons: For instance, believing a claim simply because it comes from a source you admire or trust, without critically examining the validity of the claim.

Key points about the genetic fallacy:

• Source vs. Content: It confuses the credibility or origin of an idea with the truth or falsity of the idea itself. Just because an idea comes from a questionable source doesn't mean the idea is necessarily false (and vice versa).
• Relevance: The origin of an idea is often irrelevant to its truth. For example, a mathematical proof's validity does not depend on who proved it but on whether the proof logically follows from its axioms.
• Critical Thinking: It's important to engage with arguments on their own terms. Even if an idea has dubious beginnings, if it can be supported by independent evidence or reasoning, it should be considered based on those merits.

Here's an illustrative example:

• Claim: "This medical treatment is ineffective because it was developed by a company known for unethical practices."
  • Fallacy: The ethical practices of the company do not directly relate to the effectiveness of the treatment. The treatment should be evaluated through clinical trials and scientific scrutiny.

By understanding the genetic fallacy, one can better assess arguments by focusing on the evidence and reasoning rather than the source. Remember, the truth of a statement isn't determined by who said it but by whether it stands up to scrutiny.


@Grok

 

[christiefan915]

@Diogenes Anything to say about the reason for his comment?

SOMIN: Yes. Normally, state and local prosecutors and police try not to arrest and prosecute people unless there is a high chance of securing a conviction. But in this situation, if police or prosecutors arrest or accuse an undocumented immigrant of theft, even if the accusation has little or no basis, that leads to mandatory detention by the federal government. So Officials who are nativists or cater to nativist or anti-immigrant public opinion in their area can essentially use this to detain people who probably have not committed any crime and there's no real evidence against them, and the detention would be paid for by the federal government. So it's like a free lunch for nativists, local government law enforcement officials.

 

[Diogenes]

@Diogenes Anything to say about the reason for his comment?

SOMIN: Yes. Normally, state and local prosecutors and police try not to arrest and prosecute people unless there is a high chance of securing a conviction. But in this situation, if police or prosecutors arrest or accuse an undocumented immigrant of theft, even if the accusation has little or no basis, that leads to mandatory detention by the federal government. So Officials who are nativists or cater to nativist or anti-immigrant public opinion in their area can essentially use this to detain people who probably have not committed any crime and there's no real evidence against them, and the detention would be paid for by the federal government. So it's like a free lunch for nativists, local government law enforcement officials.

Nope.