A clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities

[jc456]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

dude, it's fking easy. Here again:

what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

What is it you don't get? BTW, that's all it takes to get funding.

You don't think . That guy has a (legal) family . He's never done nothing to nobody . You rip him away from mom and kids to have him what ? Sit in a jail for years before a hearing? What does that cost society ?!

If he's an illegal I don't care! why do you?

Well then think selfishly since you don't care . Your city has to pay to hold all these guys . And when you take dad away , mom has to quit her job and go on welfare with the kid . The single parent kid on welfare wh no dad is probably going to grow up to be the guy who robs your house .

Think of All the costs . the cure is worse than the disease . Better to focus resources on the really dangerous illegals .

I don't care about what? a fking illegal immigrant in my fking country. fk them. I have no time or place for criminals jack.

 

[easyt65]

To come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities', one would have to come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of' allowing criminals to break into your own home and acquiesce to their demand that they be allowed to stay - even if they break your rules / the law - and that you must pick up the tab for doing so. No one in their right mind would do so. At the very least an argument would be made for screening and controlling who came into 'your' home.

 

[Claudette]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

Nope because there isn't one.

 

[Tom Horn]

It's very simple, and yet it eludes the tards: If you want federal law enforced, then let the feds enforce it and bear the cost of the enforcement.

It's the federal government's job to protect and defend our borders, not the cities.

Why does this not penetrate the head of willfully stupid pseudocons? Beats me.

Write a bill to fund federal enforcement. "Operation Wetback". Wasn't that one of Trump's many promises?

This much is true. The Federal government owes the state of Arizona almost a BILLION dollars for warehousing their illegals. The picture you saw of our Governor Jan Brewer sticking her finger in Barry's bony chest was about reimbursement of the those funds. He laughed at her. Of course this has nothing to do with sanctuary cities although Phoenix is one. The detainees in question were housed in county jail since Arapiao was the only one going after them. Bush43 was absent on the border, Barry welcomed them in. Things just changed and hopefully President Trump will straighten out the funding and pay us back.

 

[Timmy]

To come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities', one would have to come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of' allowing criminals to break into your own home and acquiesce to their demand that they be allowed to stay - even if they break your rules / the law - and that you must pick up the tab for doing so. No one in their right mind would do so. At the very least an argument would be made for screening and controlling who came into 'your' home.

I give you the main reasons . You choose to ignore them .

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

 

[gipper]

emotion

No, it's finances. Cities have a large immigrant population. Big bunches of people leave, the economy flounders (even more than it already is). It's always money, TN.

Plus there are many organizations that make a lot of money off illegals. Money given them by a corrupt federal government. It is all a big scam.

RELIGIOUS 'CHARITIES' PROFIT FROM OPEN BORDERS
Watchdogs ask: 'Is it charity if government pays?'

Read more at Religious ‘charities’ profit from open borders
But one of the largest recipients of government funds to resettle immigrant children is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB helps resettle not only unaccompanied alien children, or UACs, who enter the country illegally but also refugees fleeing persecution overseas who enter through legal channels.

The USCCB is one of nine agencies that receive hundreds of millions in tax dollars to resettle refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S. under contract with the federal government. Six of the nine contractors are religious groups, WND has learned, including the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Church World Service and World Relief Corp., which includes a plethora of evangelical groups.

The Catholic Bishops alone received $65.9 million in federal grants to care for unaccompanied alien children and refugees, according to its 2012 annual report.


Read more at Religious ‘charities’ profit from open borders

So you don't want ANYONE to help refugees, then? If churches want to help, GOOD.

It is not about helping. It is about making money.

I thought you knew that based on your prior post.

 

[easyt65]

To come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities', one would have to come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of' allowing criminals to break into your own home and acquiesce to their demand that they be allowed to stay - even if they break your rules / the law - and that you must pick up the tab for doing so. No one in their right mind would do so. At the very least an argument would be made for screening and controlling who came into 'your' home.

I give you the main reasons . You choose to ignore them .

You may give 'reasons'; however, none of them are 'clear, direct, or comprehensive'. There is no defense for purposefully, willfully violating US Law. If you want things to change you work through the established processes to make it happen. You do NOT break the law, as you do not have the RIGHT to do so...and you certainly do NOT have the right to break the law and demand others pay for it.

 

[Timmy]

Yes. A LOT of money.

It's a federal law, and you tards expect cities to pay for its enforcement.

Sell your straw man fallacy to someone else.

You asked for an explanation. I gave it to you.

Don't ask the fucking question if you don't want to hear the answer.

no what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which does not happen with the wave of a wand. So the criminal illegal is ... where ... for the year or so he awaits a jury trial? I worked with a guy this was happening to--it was over a year to a deportation hearing. Maybe cost is a factor?

yeah, I don't think so. why do you think they can stay here?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which takes a long time. There is a possible argument that the feds should pick up the costs. So I don't get your question.

I think they need to show an ID. If no ID at time of arrest, then there would be a delay while the local police found out who the individual was. If the name is on an illegal list, then ICE is called. There is not court, there is pick up.
BTW, if they have an ID and that ID tags the individual as illegal, call ICE. There is no waiting on a court ruling.

See illegal alien is ...illegal and is a crime. Deporting is the next stop.

We have a constitution you know . Due process.

You can just grab an illegal and catapult him into the Atlantic Ocean .

You are better off taking dopey wall money and putting it into more immigration court .

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

no what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which does not happen with the wave of a wand. So the criminal illegal is ... where ... for the year or so he awaits a jury trial? I worked with a guy this was happening to--it was over a year to a deportation hearing. Maybe cost is a factor?

yeah, I don't think so. why do you think they can stay here?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which takes a long time. There is a possible argument that the feds should pick up the costs. So I don't get your question.

I think they need to show an ID. If no ID at time of arrest, then there would be a delay while the local police found out who the individual was. If the name is on an illegal list, then ICE is called. There is not court, there is pick up.
BTW, if they have an ID and that ID tags the individual as illegal, call ICE. There is no waiting on a court ruling.

See illegal alien is ...illegal and is a crime. Deporting is the next stop.

We have a constitution you know . Due process.

You can just grab an illegal and catapult him into the Atlantic Ocean .

You are better off taking dopey wall money and putting it into more immigration court .

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

 

[jc456]

no what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which does not happen with the wave of a wand. So the criminal illegal is ... where ... for the year or so he awaits a jury trial? I worked with a guy this was happening to--it was over a year to a deportation hearing. Maybe cost is a factor?

yeah, I don't think so. why do you think they can stay here?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which takes a long time. There is a possible argument that the feds should pick up the costs. So I don't get your question.

I think they need to show an ID. If no ID at time of arrest, then there would be a delay while the local police found out who the individual was. If the name is on an illegal list, then ICE is called. There is not court, there is pick up.
BTW, if they have an ID and that ID tags the individual as illegal, call ICE. There is no waiting on a court ruling.

See illegal alien is ...illegal and is a crime. Deporting is the next stop.

We have a constitution you know . Due process.

You can just grab an illegal and catapult him into the Atlantic Ocean .

You are better off taking dopey wall money and putting it into more immigration court .

well dude, they deport them back to their homeland. Not the ocean, unless you feel that's where they originate from?

 

[Timmy]

To come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities', one would have to come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of' allowing criminals to break into your own home and acquiesce to their demand that they be allowed to stay - even if they break your rules / the law - and that you must pick up the tab for doing so. No one in their right mind would do so. At the very least an argument would be made for screening and controlling who came into 'your' home.

I give you the main reasons . You choose to ignore them .

You may give 'reasons'; however, none of them are 'clear, direct, or comprehensive'. There is no defense for purposefully, willfully violating US Law. If you want things to change you work through the established processes to make it happen. You do NOT break the law, as you do not have the RIGHT to do so...and you certainly do NOT have the right to break the law and demand others pay for it.

Yes yes yes. And we shouldn't have to have locks on your door , but reality calls for it .

Think about the taxpayer costs of some great illegal roundup ?! We don't have unlimited ice agents and jail space .

Would you rather catch 10 violent illegal felons, or 8 misdemeanor guys and 2 felons ?

 

[toomuchtime_]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

Sure, it's perfectly clear. People like Brown and Emmanuel believe God has spoken to them and told that if they don't break the law to protect illegals, Hispanics may not turn out to vote for Democrats in large enough numbers for them to win future elections.

 

[Doc1]

Remove Federal dollars, problem solved.

 

[jc456]

To come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities', one would have to come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of' allowing criminals to break into your own home and acquiesce to their demand that they be allowed to stay - even if they break your rules / the law - and that you must pick up the tab for doing so. No one in their right mind would do so. At the very least an argument would be made for screening and controlling who came into 'your' home.

I give you the main reasons . You choose to ignore them .

You may give 'reasons'; however, none of them are 'clear, direct, or comprehensive'. There is no defense for purposefully, willfully violating US Law. If you want things to change you work through the established processes to make it happen. You do NOT break the law, as you do not have the RIGHT to do so...and you certainly do NOT have the right to break the law and demand others pay for it.

Yes yes yes. And we shouldn't have to have locks on your door , but reality calls for it .

Think about the taxpayer costs of some great illegal roundup ?! We don't have unlimited ice agents and jail space .

Would you rather catch 10 violent illegal felons, or 8 misdemeanor guys and 2 felons ?

more fake news. there was no talk of round up, there was however discussion about those committing crimes and building a wall to keep folks out. so just post up that talking point.

 

[jc456]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

Sure, it's perfectly clear. People like Brown and Emmanuel believe God has spoken to them and told that if they don't break the law to protect illegals, Hispanics may not turn out to vote for Democrats in large enough numbers for them to win future elections.

^^^^^^EXACTLY^^^^^^

 

[OldLady]

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which does not happen with the wave of a wand. So the criminal illegal is ... where ... for the year or so he awaits a jury trial? I worked with a guy this was happening to--it was over a year to a deportation hearing. Maybe cost is a factor?

yeah, I don't think so. why do you think they can stay here?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which takes a long time. There is a possible argument that the feds should pick up the costs. So I don't get your question.

I think they need to show an ID. If no ID at time of arrest, then there would be a delay while the local police found out who the individual was. If the name is on an illegal list, then ICE is called. There is not court, there is pick up.
BTW, if they have an ID and that ID tags the individual as illegal, call ICE. There is no waiting on a court ruling.

See illegal alien is ...illegal and is a crime. Deporting is the next stop.

We have a constitution you know . Due process.

You can just grab an illegal and catapult him into the Atlantic Ocean .

You are better off taking dopey wall money and putting it into more immigration court .

well dude, they deport them back to their homeland. Not the ocean, unless you feel that's where they originate from?

They have due process. They have to be JUDGED illegal by a COURT OF LAW. You might wish it to be so, but you can't just put someone on a bus and send him to Colombia the next day because he hasn't got proof of citizenship in his pocket.

 

[easyt65]

Think about the taxpayer costs of some great illegal roundup ?!

'The cost of rounding up illegals' is the BIGGEST BULLSHIT of all regarding dealing with Illegal immigration!

Arizona passed its own law, and before it had even gone into effect Illegals were FLOODING across the borders into neighboring states - so much so that those states were complaining and trying to take action to stop Arizona - blaming the problem on Arizona instead of joining them. Arizona proved you could affect the departure of Illegals simply by passing and demonstrating the full intent to enforce those laws - proved that Illegals would LEAVE ON THEIR OWN!

NO Jobs.
NO Housing.
NO Driver's Licenses.
NO benefits.
NO REASON TO COME HERE / BE HERE / STAY HERE.

ENFORCE the EXISTING F*ing Laws!

Again, I opine - there is NOT a lack of ABILITY to stop illegal immigration and get rid of illegals, there IS, among many, a lack of DESIRE.

 

[Seawytch]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

Why sanctuary cities must exist

 

[PredFan]

emotion

No, it's finances. Cities have a large immigrant population. Big bunches of people leave, the economy flounders (even more than it already is). It's always money, TN.

Not "immigrants", "illegal immigrants". Huge difference.