# data[].attributes.body
Something to brighten your days...

# data[].attributes.body
SELLING LIES. TRUMP CHATS SO MUCH BULLSHIT.

# data[].attributes.body
the question is invalid. this is because enforcement agencies  already without intention consider race in terms of immigration. They look for certain races.

However, we believe this should not be allowed. It is not fair to discriminate between races. They should not only look at race but investigate cases on solid evidence and not on hear say.

# data[].attributes.headline
Q2. No because the police's job is to enforce the law upon the citizens of that country. Therefore, illegal immigrants should not be there responsibility. Furthermore it will give police greater powers meaning there is a chance they could use this disproportionately against other ethnic minority's, just as they have done with stop and search powers

# data[].attributes.subject
Q2. No because the police's job is to enforce the law upon the citizens of that country. Therefore, illegal immigrants should not be there responsibility. Furthermore it will give police greater powers meaning there is a chance they could use this disproportionately against other ethnic minority's, just as they have done with stop and search powers

# data[].attributes.body
With countries with militarised police should not have police enforcement.

However, in countries such as UK who use the police as a form of social control should allow the police to intervene in some cases.

On the other hand, maybe an external agency should be involved in the immigration enforcement rather than the police force. Also the police in the UK are not trained to tackle immigration problems, so use specialists in these cases.

# data[].attributes.body
2)The police should not be involved in immigration enforcement as it furthers the stigmatisation of immigrants and results in racial profiling and makes their judgements more biased; the police force already has a history of institutional racism, and allowing them to be involved in the process of targeting immigrants may reinforce this idea. It also damages community relations.
3) no, instead judgements should be based on substantial evidence because the involvement of race allows for subjective views to affect ones judgement thus making it an unfair process.

# data[].attributes.body
1- Immigration should be about civil law instead of criminal law, because mostly it is not morally wrong. No harm caused to anyone.
Civil offence won't hurt as much as criminal offence future-wise (i.e. USA up to 20 years for illegal re-entry).

2- Probably there should be a different police unit dealing only with immigration matters. However, if police is involved it involves criminal offences.
If the State must be involved in immigration, then the police must be too, therefore immigration becomes inherently criminal.

3- Definitely not. That would lead to racism and racial discrimination. For instance leading towards Islamophobia if police stops anyone appearing to be Muslim.

4- Trump: Economy and employment derived from right wing views of people from economically deprived areas and with fewer jobs opportunities.
ECONOMIC FEAR

Brexit: Based on migration problem in Europe. People seeing refugees as a threat as a result of "ignorance and fear". Media used discursive criminalisation of immigrants that fuelled fear around Syrian refugees too.
SOCIAL/CULTURAL FEAR.

# data[].attributes.body
Civil law would be more appropriate. Criminal law stigmatises as well as exaggerates the matter.

Punitive sanctions may not be the best way to deal with the situation. Have an alternative i.e. work visa - which will allow us to monitor on a legal basis. So sign in to someone like a parole officer.