protectionist
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2013
- 57,191
- 18,365
Open Borders people have 4 basic arguments they push to defend the indefensible idea of sanctuary cities. All are idiotic.
1. A large portion of deportations come from detainers and a key regulation which DHS has relied on to ensure state and local governments honor and comply with them is 8 C.F.R. s 287.7(d). It states that “upon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by [local police], such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a period [generally] not to exceed 48 hours . . . in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department.” Open-borders legal advocates have long argued that the “shall” in this regulation actually means “may.” This is absurd. The word shall mean DO IT. Nor when you get around to it. Or maybe yes, maybe no. Just DO IT. But Obama has been using this stupid notion. In Moreno v. Napolitano (2013), his DHS started to take up this interpretation. And in his memo blitz last November, Obama purported to make this view official, by severely restricting detainers under his new unilateral Priorities Enforcement Program.
2. With 287(g) agreements, open borders freaks routinely employ what’s become a magic phrase under the Obama administration: “limited resources” — i.e., state and local authorities lack the resources to train their police to carry out federal immigration duties. As with DAPA, the argument is baseless. As a federal program, 287(g) depends on federal appropriations. During the Bush administration, the federal government was actively appropriating monies for training and detainers. And as enforcement advocates argue, considering the billions of dollars that cities and states spend just on education for illegal alien children alone (Arizona spends $1.5 billion per year), they can’t afford not to cooperate with the federal government.
3. Open-border advocates also say that such policies keep illegal aliens from dealing with police, but whenever this argument is made, empirical evidence is never forthcoming. Of course, we wouldn’t be fretting over the non-cooperation of illegal aliens if deterrence policies like Secure Communities or E-Verify were rigorously enforced in the first place. And to say that illegal aliens won't report crime because they're afraid of being deported is ridiculous. Anyone can report crime and do it anonymously in any number of ways. They can call from a pay phone of some public phone. They can send a snail mail letter ans simply not sign it. They can buy a cheap disposable cell phone and just throw it away.
4. Although liberals have never been supporters of states’ rights, they argue with a straight face that the federal government should not and cannot compel state governments to enforce federal immigration law. They argue that the programs infringe on states’ Tenth Amendment rights. Although liberals have never been supporters of states’ rights, they argue with a straight face, that the federal government should not and cannot compel state governments to enforce federal immigration law. But elsewhere they argue that the federal government can prohibit state governments from enforcing immigration law. The number of open-borders groups who filed Supreme Court briefs against Arizona’s SB1070 law, shows how they truly feel about states’ rights.
Sanctury Cities Recklessness -- Is the Steinle Murder the Final Straw National Review Online
1. A large portion of deportations come from detainers and a key regulation which DHS has relied on to ensure state and local governments honor and comply with them is 8 C.F.R. s 287.7(d). It states that “upon a determination by the Department to issue a detainer for an alien not otherwise detained by [local police], such agency shall maintain custody of the alien for a period [generally] not to exceed 48 hours . . . in order to permit assumption of custody by the Department.” Open-borders legal advocates have long argued that the “shall” in this regulation actually means “may.” This is absurd. The word shall mean DO IT. Nor when you get around to it. Or maybe yes, maybe no. Just DO IT. But Obama has been using this stupid notion. In Moreno v. Napolitano (2013), his DHS started to take up this interpretation. And in his memo blitz last November, Obama purported to make this view official, by severely restricting detainers under his new unilateral Priorities Enforcement Program.
2. With 287(g) agreements, open borders freaks routinely employ what’s become a magic phrase under the Obama administration: “limited resources” — i.e., state and local authorities lack the resources to train their police to carry out federal immigration duties. As with DAPA, the argument is baseless. As a federal program, 287(g) depends on federal appropriations. During the Bush administration, the federal government was actively appropriating monies for training and detainers. And as enforcement advocates argue, considering the billions of dollars that cities and states spend just on education for illegal alien children alone (Arizona spends $1.5 billion per year), they can’t afford not to cooperate with the federal government.
3. Open-border advocates also say that such policies keep illegal aliens from dealing with police, but whenever this argument is made, empirical evidence is never forthcoming. Of course, we wouldn’t be fretting over the non-cooperation of illegal aliens if deterrence policies like Secure Communities or E-Verify were rigorously enforced in the first place. And to say that illegal aliens won't report crime because they're afraid of being deported is ridiculous. Anyone can report crime and do it anonymously in any number of ways. They can call from a pay phone of some public phone. They can send a snail mail letter ans simply not sign it. They can buy a cheap disposable cell phone and just throw it away.
4. Although liberals have never been supporters of states’ rights, they argue with a straight face that the federal government should not and cannot compel state governments to enforce federal immigration law. They argue that the programs infringe on states’ Tenth Amendment rights. Although liberals have never been supporters of states’ rights, they argue with a straight face, that the federal government should not and cannot compel state governments to enforce federal immigration law. But elsewhere they argue that the federal government can prohibit state governments from enforcing immigration law. The number of open-borders groups who filed Supreme Court briefs against Arizona’s SB1070 law, shows how they truly feel about states’ rights.
Sanctury Cities Recklessness -- Is the Steinle Murder the Final Straw National Review Online
