Sanctuary Cities and States

"We are a small government party. The rights of states should be left up to those states to make, not up to the federal government."

"We want to protect immigrants as we feel most of them are good people."

"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"
 
I would like to know exactly what crime or crimes ICE-head is proposing to charge against un-named politicians? Sounds like vague blustering to me.
 
Yeah, good luck with that. redonkulous idea. Waste of time of the cops we already have. I will happily watch the TV show though. How asinine and juicy. Not mutually exclusive in the least.

So *********** stupid.
 
gregthehammer said:
I would like to know exactly what crime or crimes ICE-head is proposing to charge against un-named politicians? Sounds like vague blustering to me.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, he's cited no specific laws. Maybe he could try harboring or encouraging, but I doubt any credible prosecutor would go for it. I can't imagine that part of his comments is anything more than empty fist-shaking. I do think he will be sending larger numbers of ICE agents to start enforcing immigration laws more aggressively. Done competently, that can be done perfectly lawfully and our local California politicians couldn't do much about it except complain.
 
plague311 said:
"We are a small government party. The rights of states should be left up to those states to make, not up to the federal government."

"We want to protect immigrants as we feel most of them are good people."

"RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE"
Click to expand...

Do you think the idea of sanctuary cities and states is a good one? If so, why? Forget what the criminals in DC think for a moment.

I would like these politicians held accountable in some way, or better yet we end this sanctuary baloney altogether. I'm extremely frustrated by my state walking all over the voters without asking us how we feel about it. They do not care what we think, it's all politics.

Here's a good one - too many criminals in our town, let's just change the law instead....

Town Declares Itself Sanctuary City
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5308397
One small city down the freeway from Los Angeles has fashioned itself a haven for illegal immigrants. Maywood, California, official population just under 30,000; unofficial population, 45,000. That last number includes the undocumented residents living there.

Now the City Council has declared Maywood to be a sanctuary city, where immigrants are welcome and protected whether they have documents or not. And it's passed a resolution against a bill approved by the U.S. House that would make illegal immigration a felony.

.....

MONTAGNE: So you, though, do have in your own community, Latinos who come up to you and say, Councilman Aguirre, you're doing the wrong thing.

Mayor AGUIRRE: Yes, that' true.
Click to expand...

What's really going on, Mr Mayor? Who is going to stop this?
 
mgidm86 said:
Do you think the idea of sanctuary cities and states is a good one? If so, why? Forget what the criminals in DC think for a moment.

I would like these politicians held accountable in some way, or better yet we end this sanctuary baloney altogether. I'm extremely frustrated by my state walking all over the voters without asking us how we feel about it. They do not care what we think, it's all politics.

Here's a good one - too many criminals in our town, let's just change the law instead....

Town Declares Itself Sanctuary City
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5308397


What's really going on, Mr Mayor? Who is going to stop this?
Click to expand...

I guess I'd like to understand why you think this is a concern.

Just a clarification question: Is it that you're classifying every illegal immigrant as a criminal by definition? (because they're illegal immigrants?)

And I guess the next question is: ok, why is that such a bad thing that rounding them up should divert resources from other 'crimes'?
 
Why on earth would you want to make illegal immigration a crime? Under section 237 and 212 of the INA respectively, the alien has to establish through preponderance of the evidence that he/she is entitled to enter/stay in the US. Immigration law is administrative law as of today. Making illegal immigration a crime moves the burden entirely on the government and allows access to all of the appeals available to criminal defendants. The standard as of now is preponderance of the evidence, not, no unreasonable doubt. You'd have people on supervised release with work permits waiting for years for court days and appeals to play out.
 
blutoski said:
I guess I'd like to understand why you think this is a concern.

Just a clarification question: Is it that you're classifying every illegal immigrant as a criminal by definition? (because they're illegal immigrants?)

And I guess the next question is: ok, why is that such a bad thing that rounding them up should divert resources from other 'crimes'?
Click to expand...

Just a clarification, do you not think that countries should have border/immigration controls but just allow a free for all?
 
Giz said:
Just a clarification, do you not think that countries should have border/immigration controls but just allow a free for all?
Click to expand...
Straw man.

Re your other post:
Do you think the idea of sanctuary cities and states is a good one? If so, why? Forget what the criminals in DC think for a moment.
Click to expand...
Have you made any effort to understand what the reasoning is for sanctuary cities? I find it hard to believe the reasoning is something you've never heard.

That suggests you are instead ignoring the issue rather than debating it.
 
Good prank
picture.php
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Straw man.

Re your other post:Have you made any effort to understand what the reasoning is for sanctuary cities? I find it hard to believe the reasoning is something you've never heard.

That suggests you are instead ignoring the issue rather than debating it.
Click to expand...

To your first point, I was directly following up blutoski 's post. How does that a strawman make?

To your second, I am not mgidm86.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Straw man.

Re your other post:Have you made any effort to understand what the reasoning is for sanctuary cities? I find it hard to believe the reasoning is something you've never heard.

That suggests you are instead ignoring the issue rather than debating it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is a strawman. It is a loaded question.
 
Giz said:
To your first point, I was directly following up blutoski 's post. How does that a strawman make?
Click to expand...
Still straw, his question was about criminalizing immigrants that are here, not about dropping all measures to keep people out.

Giz said:
To your second, I am not mgidm86.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the misquote. My bad.

But given you've expressed similar views, are you OK with sanctuary cities then, you understand the tradeoff?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Still straw, his question was about criminalizing immigrants that are here, not about dropping all measures to keep people out.
Click to expand...

Criminalizing illegal immigrants?

His post was criticizing the enforcement of immigration law. You don't want immigration law enforced?
 
mgidm86 said:
Do you think the idea of sanctuary cities and states is a good one? If so, why? Forget what the criminals in DC think for a moment.
Click to expand...

Well the statistics do seem to show that Sanctuary Cities are likely to experience a drop in crime, and are safer compared to similar Non-Sanctuary Cities.

It's not fully clear why this is, but causes have been put forward from that undocumented Immigrants are more likely to report crime in a Sanctuary City and so they are less vulnerable to criminal groups and gangs, and that the police can use those resources that would otherwise be tided up with dealing with UI's to target more serious crime instead.
 
I sem to remember a poll taken about 10 years ago- results were that about 70% of Americans wanted immigration laws enforced. Anybody hear of it, or a more recent poll? Isn't this a demoscracy? What do the actual people want. not the snowflakes of my home state. (The snowflakes have a rent control initiative pettition now)

Also, did SCOTUS a couple years ago tell Arizona that AZ can't enforce federal immigration law?
 
casebro said:
I sem to remember a poll taken about 10 years ago- results were that about 70% of Americans wanted immigration laws enforced. Anybody hear of it, or a more recent poll? Isn't this a demoscracy? What do the actual people want. not the snowflakes of my home state. (The snowflakes have a rent control initiative pettition now)

Also, did SCOTUS a couple years ago tell Arizona that AZ can't enforce federal immigration law?
Click to expand...

I was going to reply, but I think it is better to state that some weird comment about snowflakes versus real people doesn't engender a thoughtful reply.
 
casebro said:
I sem to remember a poll taken about 10 years ago- results were that about 70% of Americans wanted immigration laws enforced. Anybody hear of it, or a more recent poll? Isn't this a demoscracy? What do the actual people want. not the snowflakes of my home state. (The snowflakes have a rent control initiative pettition now)

Also, did SCOTUS a couple years ago tell Arizona that AZ can't enforce federal immigration law?
Click to expand...

Illegal immigration isn't (mostly) a 'bleeding heart snowflake' issue, it's a 'redblooded small-government job creators' issue.
People immigrate illegally because businesses want to employ them illegally. Because it's cheap.

If you want to reduce illegal immigration, reduce the incentive for businesses to profit from them.
That's a lot more effective than blaming the left for being too touchy-feely.
 
You’ve got to love the “snowflake” barb coming from the side of the debate that hides under their beds because scary brown people.
 
gregthehammer said:
I would like to know exactly what crime or crimes ICE-head is proposing to charge against un-named politicians? Sounds like vague blustering to me.
Click to expand...
Obstruction of justice?

There's a reasonable argument for why local law enforcement shouldn't enforce the border, to encourage reporting of other crimes. I'd be curious to see if that actually pans out, is their data supporting?

How does this compare to other federal crime? Does local law enforcement routinely enforce other federal crimes? Do they openly declare that they won't?
 
ahhell said:
How does this compare to other federal crime? Does local law enforcement routinely enforce other federal crimes? Do they openly declare that they won't?
Click to expand...

California just legalized recreational marijuana. It's against federal law.

Is that an open enough declaration?
 
California's sanctuary state law prevents law enforcement from turning over to ICE criminals in the system for deportation. That is the cooperation that is outlawed in the Ca law. It is not saying police can not go do immigration raids, they already don't do that, it is saying when you have someone in the jail, you may not notify ICE or hold that person for ICE if requested.
 
pgwenthold said:
California just legalized recreational marijuana. It's against federal law.

Is that an open enough declaration?
Click to expand...

And just as I say this, Sessions announces that he is going to try to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized it.
 
pgwenthold said:
And just as I say this, Sessions announces that he is going to try to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized it.
Click to expand...

Yep, I thought exactly the same thing. I'd say that turning over maryjane users to the federal pen has a greater social benefit than turning over some student who forgot to renew her visa. So if the argument is that local authorities should grant full cooperation to federal enforcement without using their discretion... then all those druggies gotta go too.
 
Horhang said:
California's sanctuary state law prevents law enforcement from turning over to ICE criminals in the system for deportation. That is the cooperation that is outlawed in the Ca law. It is not saying police can not go do immigration raids, they already don't do that, it is saying when you have someone in the jail, you may not notify ICE or hold that person for ICE if requested.
Click to expand...

It's been a while, but I've seen polling data suggesting that approval ratings are noticeably higher if you ask people if they approve of "sanctuary city" policies using that language than they are if you ask people whether jails should honor immigration detention requests.
The largely anecdotal impression I get living in Los Angeles is that people here don't want cops asking people their immigration status or passing immigration information that they come across to the feds, but a lot of folks have no strong objection to honoring detention requests.
 
Horhang said:
California's sanctuary state law prevents law enforcement from turning over to ICE criminals in the system for deportation. That is the cooperation that is outlawed in the Ca law. It is not saying police can not go do immigration raids, they already don't do that, it is saying when you have someone in the jail, you may not notify ICE or hold that person for ICE if requested.
Click to expand...
The problem with this is Trump claims everyone who crossed the border or overstayed their VISAs (though Trump doesn't seem to care about them just the brown people) is a criminal.

I get it people like to stamp their feet and declare all those people here without proper paperwork are criminals. But when asked, what about some poor kids that were brought here when they were toddlers and have lived here all their lives, that question and all the issues surrounding it are dodged. Those kids are labeled anchor babies (even though that's bull **** given it does not give the parents a leg up in the immigration system), because it allows those people to despise the kids. And all those pro-family values people don't have an answer for how we keep families together when one member is undocumented.

When asked, are we going to deport 11 million people, the most militant would say yes, again not considering the impact that would have on the economy. The less militant anti-immigrants simply ignore the issue and revert back to their resentment of brown people.
 
Civet said:
The acting head of ICE has suggested charging politicians in sanctuary cities with crimes. Anyone have any thoughts about this or about sanctuary city/state policies in a more general way?
Click to expand...


I don't see how this could work as the feds cannot commandeer the state governments (they have to bribe them by throwing money at them, and then they still get a clear choice to accept or not), and these sanctuary laws all contain something like "except where required by federal law" as a get out of jail free card.
 
Last edited:
Porpoise of Life said:
Illegal immigration isn't (mostly) a 'bleeding heart snowflake' issue, it's a 'redblooded small-government job creators' issue.
People immigrate illegally because businesses want to employ them illegally. Because it's cheap.

If you want to reduce illegal immigration, reduce the incentive for businesses to profit from them.
That's a lot more effective than blaming the left for being too touchy-feely.
Click to expand...



Or, make it easier for people to immigrate legally. Clearly, there are a lot of jobs that need doing, and there are a lot of people willing to move to the US to do those jobs. And a lot of Americans have clearly indicated their support for immigrants doing these jobs by hiring them, or patronizing the businesses that hire them.

So why not just make it legal?
 
Horatius said:
Or, make it easier for people to immigrate legally. Clearly, there are a lot of jobs that need doing, and there are a lot of people willing to move to the US to do those jobs. And a lot of Americans have clearly indicated their support for immigrants doing these jobs by hiring them, or patronizing the businesses that hire them.

So why not just make it legal?
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm too cynical, but my guess is that the PTB are afraid that will erode their power. Much better to keep them coming in illegally to exploit, and keep them as a scary boogyman to scare the white voters.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The problem with this is Trump claims everyone who crossed the border or overstayed their VISAs (though Trump doesn't seem to care about them just the brown people) is a criminal.
Click to expand...

That's not the problem at all. Sanctuaries are concerned with people who they have taken into custody for local crimes in their jurisdiction. The administration's theory of immigrant criminality is not relevant to that.
 
blutoski said:
Meaning neither is remotely a threat to society, but if I had to choose whether a feather or a cottonball was more dangerous to life and limb, I'd go with the feather, for example.
Click to expand...

Understood. A particular category of scofflaw that often pops up in these discussions is drunk drivers. Clearly a public safety issue but one where the individual offender might be sympathetic and usually hasn't harmed anyone yet at the time of his arrest. Obama administration reportedly ramped up deportations for vehicular misdemeanors. As far as I know, sanctuary cities do not consider drunk drivers to be one of the types of criminals that they'll turn over to the feds if they don't have to. Becomes an embarrassment when one of them kills somebody.
 
So ICE decided to have a go at 7-11. Apparently this is an expansion of a long-running investigation. They say that targeting employers of illegal aliens is going to be more of a priority now.
 
Civet said:
So ICE decided to have a go at 7-11. Apparently this is an expansion of a long-running investigation. They say that targeting employers of illegal aliens is going to be more of a priority now.
Click to expand...

If I put my nickel down, I'd guess that it will be small employers of illegal aliens. Brown employers of illegal aliens.

7-11 franchises being the type specimen for 'immigrant owned family business'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom