Spewing More Mis-Information!
Bottom line: Prop 47 reclassified a targeted slice of low-level non-violent offenses (mainly certain thefts under $950 and personal drug possession), resulting in roughly a 30% reduction in felony caseload in the impacted areas of the system. These are still crimes — just handled with lighter penalties and processes than before. The scale was significant for the criminal justice workload and prison population but far from the majority of all crime in California.
Saad in a Gad way, that I need to explain how our government works to a so called representative in name only.
Yes, immigration enforcement is enforced by the executive branch by constitutional design and statutory delegation.
Quick breakdown of how it works:
Congress writes the immigration laws (primarily through the Immigration and Nationality Act and related statutes). It decides who can enter, who can stay, grounds for removal/deportation, etc.
Executive branch enforces those laws. The President, as head of the executive, directs agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on how to carry them out.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is the main interior enforcement arm under DHS. It handles investigations, detentions, and removals of people already inside the U.S. who violate immigration law. (CBP handles most border enforcement.)
ICE was created by Congress in 2003 via the Homeland Security Act (post-9/11 reorganization), merging functions from the old INS and Customs Service. Its existence, structure, and authorities are statutory — set by law, not created by executive order alone.
The President has significant leeway through prosecutorial discretion: deciding enforcement priorities (e.g., focus on criminals vs. broader enforcement), resource allocation, and specific policies like deferred action. Different administrations have used this differently — some ramped up interior enforcement, others narrowed it.
On changing things or abolishing/replacing ICE:
Your point is correct on the executive side: If a different party wins the White House, the new President can immediately redirect enforcement priorities by appointing a new DHS Secretary, issuing memos/guidance to ICE, and setting different targets. This has happened repeatedly across administrations. They don't need to "abolish" the agency to change how aggressively or narrowly it operates.
However, fully abolishing or replacing ICE as an agency requires Congressional action. You can't just executive-order an entire statutory agency out of existence without legislation repealing or restructuring the relevant laws.
Rep. Ro Khanna (and some other Democrats) have proposed dismantling ICE and replacing it with a new agency— often suggested to be housed under the Department of Justice instead of DHS — with stronger civilian oversight, more emphasis on "human rights" standards in detention/enforcement, and other reforms. This is explicitly framed as legislative (he has introduced resolutions and plans calling for it). Similar bills like the "Abolish ICE Act" have been introduced but have not passed.
Bottom line:
ICE (and CBP) are doing the job Congress wrote into law, as directed by the current executive branch leadership.
Policy disagreements about how much or whom to enforce against are legitimately addressed through elections (changing the President and thus enforcement priorities) and/or new legislation from Congress.
"Abolish and replace" proposals go further — they target the agency's structure and culture itself, which would need lawmakers to act.
The system is deliberately split this way: Congress sets the rules, the executive enforces them (with discretion), and courts can review specific actions for legality. That's the design.
Soros Funds Revolutions, not Constitutional Republics!
Fucking Useful Idiots!
Asking AI - "This is because of the Soros backed Prop 47 Correct?"
Proposition 47 (2014) reclassified nonviolent property crimes like shoplifting under $950 from felonies to misdemeanors and received funding support from George Soros-linked groups such as Open Society Policy Center.
Critics, including in Riley Gaines' post, contend it effectively reduces consequences for theft, discouraging reporting and arrests, which can lower official robbery and property crime statistics despite public perceptions of rising incidents.
Studies show mixed impacts—some property crime increases post-Prop 47 due to changed incentives, but recent California DOJ data confirms robbery declines since 2019 amid broader enforcement shifts, with causation debated.
@greendragonhq Says the FOOL who is currently under investigation for FRAUD!?! Everything from the Marxist handbook!?!
With Truth Seeking AI, there should be the end of lying politicians like the Grifter Gavin Newscum. At least that is what I pray!
Speaking Truth to Lies!
This is Exactly what I Proudly voted for!
Exceptional Leadership that do not fold to sharp critics!
"Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong." — Abraham Lincoln
It's been 1 YEAR since the Working Families Tax Cuts were signed into law! ✍️
In just 365 days, this historic legislation delivered the largest tax cuts to working families, made our nation safer, & opened up more opportunities for everyone.
A PROMISE MADE, PROMISE KEPT ✅
@GavinNewsom No, You Stupid Fool. You will never succeed, because you do not understand that every time you insult @realDonaldTrump you insult ME! So Go Fuck Yourself!
Nothing is 'fixed'?
The Constitution is fixed law, ratified by We the People.
Your speech reframes America as perpetual revolution where immigrants rewrite the rules. That's not exceptionalism—it's erosion.
Real Americans defend the founding framework that made this nation great, not import grievances to tear it down.
Speaking Truth to Life!
My Dad's Family came to America in the 1880s from Luxembourg, and my mom has at least one native American ancestor and her blood goes through Many of the families who Bleed, Sweet, and Died for this Freedom Loving Country.
Including:
Nantucket / Martha’s Vineyard / coastal Massachusetts: Clark, Worth, Coffin, Folger, Swain, Coleman, Barnard, Bunker, Hussey, Cathcart.
Interior Massachusetts / early New England: Wilder, Sawyer, Prescott, Fairbanks, Frost, Whipple, Scripture, Boynton, Bowers, Thompson, Hayward.
Virginia Tidewater / Middlesex / New Kent / York: Hockaday, Brister/Bristow, Goodloe, Thompson, Twyman, Bradenham, Mohun, Armistead, Elwood.
Southern frontier / Revolution-to-Republic: Roberts, Warren, Norris, Tate, Arnold, Stewart/Stuart, Calvit, Crook.
As such, it Sickens me to see people who do not support our Republic.
Thank-you Mr McConaughey for your thought filled words!
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." - Theodore Roosevelt
its kinda a trick question. All four appear to be wearing rubber sole shoes (tennis shoes) which are non conductive when dry, and a wood stool is an insulator same as the shoes so only D is DEAD A, B, and C should be safe. A/C power will kill you if the current passes through your heart so one handed insulated work is usually safest, poor D is connecting Hot to Neutral through his heart almost guaranteed Myocardial Infarction. I have a minor in electronics! No Physics needed! 😎