Conservatives, help me out.

[SavannahMann]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

This really isn't about local police doing federal work, it's more about local police holding law breakers until feds arrive to do theirs.

As a taxpayer of my city, I wouldn't think twice about our police holding illegals in custody for a day or two or even several days. It's money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

After 911, George Bush realized that one of the problems we had detecting those terrorists is that our agencies were not working together. They kept information away from each other and that breakdown weakened our defenses. We had terrorists attending pilot school, and one even told the instructor he didn't care about takeoff or landing, he only cared about how to fly the plane once in flight. Another terrorist was stopped by local police and issued a ticket for a traffic offense. They even used our internet for communications.

The question is are we going to work together to reduce the amount of illegals in this country or not? If we do, we may be able to accomplish some things. If we are going to fight each other, we won't accomplish much.

Ray, you know the 9-11 terrorists were here on valid visas. So even if you rounded up all the illegals, they would have been here anyway.

You say you wouldn't mind the jails in your city holding some illegals for days. Are you sure? Ohio has a serious problem with overcrowding of prisons and jails. So much of a problem that they are looking at abandoning the tough on crime mentality that mandates minimum sentencing.

Proposed reforms could divert 3,400 offenders from Ohio's overcrowded prisons. Not everyone is on board.

By shuffling first time offenders from the over crowded prisons, the jails at capacity will be overcrowded and they'll have to release a bunch of people. Add in a few thousand illegals, and murderers who are citizens will be released to hold illegals.

Remember this?

Lindsay Lohan released from jail shortly after checking in - CNN.com

Lohan was out the next morning. I don't think she even ate a meal. I laughed when her thirty day sentence was considered time served in about seven hours. The threat from the judge was even funnier. If Lohan screwed up again she was going to serve all the 270 sentence. What would that take? A week?

Los Angeles is not alone. Most jails are at or over capacity. It is the old joke about a blivet. Ten pounds in a five pound bag. So how many serious criminals are you going to release to hold a maid who is an illegal immigrant?

I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not a crime. I'm not saying we should ignore it. I am saying that the cities in question may have other priorities that are more serious. Finding your grandfathers watch may be important. But while you are in a burning building, you might want to reconsider your priorities.

We used to have a saying. When you are up to your ass in alligators it's hard to remember that the reason you are here is to drain the swamp.

One of the reasons that cities like Los Angeles give is investigation of serious crimes. The do not want an unsolved murder because the witnesses are more afraid of the police and won't talk.

"I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not a crime. I'm not saying we should ignore it. I am saying that the cities in question may have other priorities that are more serious. Finding your grandfathers watch may be important. But while you are in a burning building, you might want to reconsider your priorities."
Is there a larger more costly problem in this country right now? What should be a greater priority?

"One of the reasons that cities like Los Angeles give is investigation of serious crimes. The do not want an unsolved murder because the witnesses are more afraid of the police and won't talk"
That is the claim but is it sensible? Can that bullshit claim be quantified?
If true would it outweigh all the negatives related to illegals? Have we reached the point where we should be so sackless and allow criminals the ability to leverage our laws? LA is ran by Democratic filth and anchor babies...they want to protect their families and voter base. That's the real reason.
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country enough to justify keeping them around JUST IN CASE they witness a crime?
Libtards-
"We think it makes perfect sense to pay a family of seven 90k-ish per year to be a watch-dog JUST IN CASE they witness a crime."
LOL...Only in Libtardo Land

Where did I say keep them? I said that if the cities and states don't want to be involved in it then that was a states rights issue. I've written at least half a dozen time in this thread alone that it is up to the Feds to get them.

One of the reasons the LAPD gives for not participating is that.

Chief Bratton's Comments on Immigration - Los Angeles Police Department

http://assets.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/lapd_fed_faq.pdf

Now why should the LAPD do what they are not authorized to do, and do not have the authority to do?

If you want to federalize all the cops, that is a whole other debate. One where I will argue no in as loud a voice possible.

 

[SavannahMann]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes.

After serving time for committing those crimes, should illegal aliens be held for the Feds, or should local law enforcement release them back into the community?

You really don't know what we are talking about do you?

Please, explain it to me.
And answer my question.
Or avoid it some more.......

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you? How big a problem is crime committed by immigrants?

Hell, police commit more crimes per capita than illegal immigrants.

But the question is this. There is no provision under California Law for state, county, or city police to enforce federal immigration law. Just as there was no provision by the states that empowered them for county sheriffs to conduct background checks under the Brady Law. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that it was unconstitutional to require Sheriffs to do that under the Tenth Amendment. So what happened to states rights? States rights was the argument that Arizona used when they empowered their police to question the status and citizenship of a person. I agreed with that. Arizona has the right to do what they want as long as it does not violate civil rights.

Do states rights in your opinion go out the window because of rapes, murders, and robbery. What other laws go out the window? Should we ignore Posse Comitatis to put the army on the streets to end street violence? How about the first amendment. Are we going to just brush that aside too?

What I am doing is pointing out how Conservatives have no core beliefs. They argue states rights when it suits them, but when they want big powerful government to accomplish their task then fuck states rights we demand compliance.

You don't give a shit about the constitution. You are loyal only to whatever whim strikes you. For me the foundation is always the constitution. If the constitution says we aren't supposed to do it, we shouldn't do it.

The constitution gives immigration to the federal government. Let them handle it. If the local cops are able legally to help, fine. If the states decide a hands off police suits them, I am just as fine with it.

 

[Boss]

Where did I say keep them? I said that if the cities and states don't want to be involved in it then that was a states rights issue...

AGAIN-- It cannot be a states rights issue when enumerated federal constitutional power supersedes. That is the point you're missing here. I'm one of the most outspoken supporters of state's rights. I am also a Federalist and Constitutionalist. You don't have a state's rights argument in support of sanctuary cities because immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power granted to the federal government.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes.

After serving time for committing those crimes, should illegal aliens be held for the Feds, or should local law enforcement release them back into the community?

You really don't know what we are talking about do you?

Please, explain it to me.
And answer my question.
Or avoid it some more.......

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you? How big a problem is crime committed by immigrants?

Hell, police commit more crimes per capita than illegal immigrants.

But the question is this. There is no provision under California Law for state, county, or city police to enforce federal immigration law. Just as there was no provision by the states that empowered them for county sheriffs to conduct background checks under the Brady Law. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that it was unconstitutional to require Sheriffs to do that under the Tenth Amendment. So what happened to states rights? States rights was the argument that Arizona used when they empowered their police to question the status and citizenship of a person. I agreed with that. Arizona has the right to do what they want as long as it does not violate civil rights.

Do states rights in your opinion go out the window because of rapes, murders, and robbery. What other laws go out the window? Should we ignore Posse Comitatis to put the army on the streets to end street violence? How about the first amendment. Are we going to just brush that aside too?

What I am doing is pointing out how Conservatives have no core beliefs. They argue states rights when it suits them, but when they want big powerful government to accomplish their task then fuck states rights we demand compliance.

You don't give a shit about the constitution. You are loyal only to whatever whim strikes you. For me the foundation is always the constitution. If the constitution says we aren't supposed to do it, we shouldn't do it.

The constitution gives immigration to the federal government. Let them handle it. If the local cops are able legally to help, fine. If the states decide a hands off police suits them, I am just as fine with it.

Well, there are many that are not fine with that. Two that I know of are the parents of Kate Steinle. Speaking of which, if the Democrats really believe that immigrants are involved in such little crime, why did they kill Kate's Law in the Senate?

Illegal Immigrants Accounted for Nearly 37 Percent of Federal Sentences in FY 2014 - Breitbart

Illegal immigrants responsible for almost three-fourths of federal drug possession sentences in 2014

Report: Illegals Committed 600,000 Crimes in Texas in 6 Yrs

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes.

After serving time for committing those crimes, should illegal aliens be held for the Feds, or should local law enforcement release them back into the community?

You really don't know what we are talking about do you?

Please, explain it to me.
And answer my question.
Or avoid it some more.......

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you? How big a problem is crime committed by immigrants?

Hell, police commit more crimes per capita than illegal immigrants.

But the question is this. There is no provision under California Law for state, county, or city police to enforce federal immigration law. Just as there was no provision by the states that empowered them for county sheriffs to conduct background checks under the Brady Law. The Supreme Court agreed and ruled that it was unconstitutional to require Sheriffs to do that under the Tenth Amendment. So what happened to states rights? States rights was the argument that Arizona used when they empowered their police to question the status and citizenship of a person. I agreed with that. Arizona has the right to do what they want as long as it does not violate civil rights.

Do states rights in your opinion go out the window because of rapes, murders, and robbery. What other laws go out the window? Should we ignore Posse Comitatis to put the army on the streets to end street violence? How about the first amendment. Are we going to just brush that aside too?

What I am doing is pointing out how Conservatives have no core beliefs. They argue states rights when it suits them, but when they want big powerful government to accomplish their task then fuck states rights we demand compliance.

You don't give a shit about the constitution. You are loyal only to whatever whim strikes you. For me the foundation is always the constitution. If the constitution says we aren't supposed to do it, we shouldn't do it.

The constitution gives immigration to the federal government. Let them handle it. If the local cops are able legally to help, fine. If the states decide a hands off police suits them, I am just as fine with it.

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you?

BS.

There is no provision under California Law for state, county, or city police to enforce federal immigration law.

I don't expect them to throw an illegal alien in jail for a long period, just because they're an illegal alien.

Do states rights in your opinion go out the window because of rapes, murders, and robbery.

Of course not. Silly question.

What I am doing is pointing out how Conservatives have no core beliefs.

Yes, I've seen your mistaken belief on this topic.

If the local cops are able legally to help, fine.

Sounds good. So when that illegal alien felon is about to be released, would you prefer the state notify the Feds before he's released or do you prefer he's released into the community, because states rights?

 

[SavannahMann]

Where did I say keep them? I said that if the cities and states don't want to be involved in it then that was a states rights issue...

AGAIN-- It cannot be a states rights issue when enumerated federal constitutional power supersedes. That is the point you're missing here. I'm one of the most outspoken supporters of state's rights. I am also a Federalist and Constitutionalist. You don't have a state's rights argument in support of sanctuary cities because immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power granted to the federal government.

Nobody is stopping the Feds. The most they are doing is hands off. They aren't calling ICE to say they have a suspected illegal, and the fax for the requests to detain drop right into the garbage. A request is asking for a favor or service. It is not a legal order like a Warrant issued by a court.

The Feds can arrest all the illegals they want. The locals are not helping. That is what the Sanctuary thing is actually doing. It is a misuse of the term. We view sanctuary like a person in a church and the authorities are powerless to do anything about it.

No one is preventing the ICE agents from going out and arresting illegals. They just aren't helping.

 

[SavannahMann]

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you?

BS.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up. Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation agrees with the study, but they've taken a different approach than just declaring BS to information they don't like. They argue that 100% of those crimes would not occur if the Illegal Immigrants were not here.

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity

If the local cops are able legally to help, fine.

Sounds good. So when that illegal alien felon is about to be released, would you prefer the state notify the Feds before he's released or do you prefer he's released into the community, because states rights?

It depends on what they are required to do by law. If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime. I am always in opposition to the police committing crimes. I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Now, in Georgia, the cops call ICE. They hold suspected illegals for the entire time. I am not out there protesting or shouting it is unfair. I live in Georgia, and have for more than two decades. What this state does is obviously far more my concern than California, since I live here. I am not out there campaigning that we should be turning them loose. I believe Georgia has the right to address the issue the way Georgia wants to providing that it does not violate Civil Rights. States Rights do not trump Civil Rights in my book, ever.

I argued for that when the Brady Law was the issue de jour, and I am still arguing the same. I argued it when Obamacare was the issue, and the States were opting out. It is their choice, and the politicians who made those choices are still in power, so the citizens of those states approved, generally speaking. I have no issue with that. None.

Sanctuary is misused to describe the situation. No where are the police preventing ICE from arresting someone. San Francisco does not have the immigrants surrounded by the police with machine guns preventing ICE agents from making arrests. California hasn't called out the National Guard to stop ICE from grabbing anyone.

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that. One example, sure. But it is one example where the LAPD said it happened, and we would be fools to think it is the only example.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison. I want the prisons to work more towards rehabilitation and preventing the crimes of the future.

I said I was liberal by Georgia standards, But I am a RW nutter by San Fran standards. I belong to the ACLU and the NRA as well as another Second Amendment group. I agree with the ACLU on their interpretation of a vast majority of the Civil Rights. I disagree with them on the Second. I agree with the NRA that the Second is important and should be defended. That's why I am a member. I also agree with the ACLU that the rest of the civil rights must be defended as well. The NRA doesn't care about the others, except on how they affect the Second. I wish the ACLU was more pro Second Amendment, but wishes ain't fishes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you?

BS.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up. Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation agrees with the study, but they've taken a different approach than just declaring BS to information they don't like. They argue that 100% of those crimes would not occur if the Illegal Immigrants were not here.

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity

If the local cops are able legally to help, fine.

Sounds good. So when that illegal alien felon is about to be released, would you prefer the state notify the Feds before he's released or do you prefer he's released into the community, because states rights?

It depends on what they are required to do by law. If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime. I am always in opposition to the police committing crimes. I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Now, in Georgia, the cops call ICE. They hold suspected illegals for the entire time. I am not out there protesting or shouting it is unfair. I live in Georgia, and have for more than two decades. What this state does is obviously far more my concern than California, since I live here. I am not out there campaigning that we should be turning them loose. I believe Georgia has the right to address the issue the way Georgia wants to providing that it does not violate Civil Rights. States Rights do not trump Civil Rights in my book, ever.

I argued for that when the Brady Law was the issue de jour, and I am still arguing the same. I argued it when Obamacare was the issue, and the States were opting out. It is their choice, and the politicians who made those choices are still in power, so the citizens of those states approved, generally speaking. I have no issue with that. None.

Sanctuary is misused to describe the situation. No where are the police preventing ICE from arresting someone. San Francisco does not have the immigrants surrounded by the police with machine guns preventing ICE agents from making arrests. California hasn't called out the National Guard to stop ICE from grabbing anyone.

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that. One example, sure. But it is one example where the LAPD said it happened, and we would be fools to think it is the only example.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison. I want the prisons to work more towards rehabilitation and preventing the crimes of the future.

I said I was liberal by Georgia standards, But I am a RW nutter by San Fran standards. I belong to the ACLU and the NRA as well as another Second Amendment group. I agree with the ACLU on their interpretation of a vast majority of the Civil Rights. I disagree with them on the Second. I agree with the NRA that the Second is important and should be defended. That's why I am a member. I also agree with the ACLU that the rest of the civil rights must be defended as well. The NRA doesn't care about the others, except on how they affect the Second. I wish the ACLU was more pro Second Amendment, but wishes ain't fishes.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up.

Thanks for the link to the study with the BS numbers.

If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

Sounds like a stupid state law, if that's the case.
I asked what you prefer.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime.

You think there is a law preventing a cop from making a call? Sounds interesting. Link?

I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Do you support deporting illegal aliens before they commit crimes?

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that.

That's awesome! I hope we can still solve murders after deporting lots of illegal aliens.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison.

Great. After the illegal alien murderers and rapists serve their term, do you want them deported, or do you want them released back into the local community?

 

[SavannahMann]

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you?

BS.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up. Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation agrees with the study, but they've taken a different approach than just declaring BS to information they don't like. They argue that 100% of those crimes would not occur if the Illegal Immigrants were not here.

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity

If the local cops are able legally to help, fine.

Sounds good. So when that illegal alien felon is about to be released, would you prefer the state notify the Feds before he's released or do you prefer he's released into the community, because states rights?

It depends on what they are required to do by law. If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime. I am always in opposition to the police committing crimes. I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Now, in Georgia, the cops call ICE. They hold suspected illegals for the entire time. I am not out there protesting or shouting it is unfair. I live in Georgia, and have for more than two decades. What this state does is obviously far more my concern than California, since I live here. I am not out there campaigning that we should be turning them loose. I believe Georgia has the right to address the issue the way Georgia wants to providing that it does not violate Civil Rights. States Rights do not trump Civil Rights in my book, ever.

I argued for that when the Brady Law was the issue de jour, and I am still arguing the same. I argued it when Obamacare was the issue, and the States were opting out. It is their choice, and the politicians who made those choices are still in power, so the citizens of those states approved, generally speaking. I have no issue with that. None.

Sanctuary is misused to describe the situation. No where are the police preventing ICE from arresting someone. San Francisco does not have the immigrants surrounded by the police with machine guns preventing ICE agents from making arrests. California hasn't called out the National Guard to stop ICE from grabbing anyone.

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that. One example, sure. But it is one example where the LAPD said it happened, and we would be fools to think it is the only example.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison. I want the prisons to work more towards rehabilitation and preventing the crimes of the future.

I said I was liberal by Georgia standards, But I am a RW nutter by San Fran standards. I belong to the ACLU and the NRA as well as another Second Amendment group. I agree with the ACLU on their interpretation of a vast majority of the Civil Rights. I disagree with them on the Second. I agree with the NRA that the Second is important and should be defended. That's why I am a member. I also agree with the ACLU that the rest of the civil rights must be defended as well. The NRA doesn't care about the others, except on how they affect the Second. I wish the ACLU was more pro Second Amendment, but wishes ain't fishes.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up.

Thanks for the link to the study with the BS numbers.

If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

Sounds like a stupid state law, if that's the case.
I asked what you prefer.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime.

You think there is a law preventing a cop from making a call? Sounds interesting. Link?

I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Do you support deporting illegal aliens before they commit crimes?

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that.

That's awesome! I hope we can still solve murders after deporting lots of illegal aliens.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison.

Great. After the illegal alien murderers and rapists serve their term, do you want them deported, or do you want them released back into the local community?

Link to police prohibitions.

Undocumented immigrant wins $190k after San Francisco violates 'sanctuary city' law

The Illegal Immigrant won nearly $200k in a lawsuit because Police violated the law.

Now I've been quite clear on my beliefs. I've been quite clear on every single one of your questions, and you still want to try and trick me into saying I want the Illegals to stay.

Here is what I'll say about what I think should happen. I believe each case should be judged on its own merits. If the person in question is qualified for some lieniency by the existing laws, then that leniency should be given. The same way we gave it to the Cubans who escape in a converted Pick Up truck. Each case should be judged individually. That is the law right now, and the system we have right now.

If the system isn't working, then we can discuss changes to the system to improve it. If the system is flawed, we can find ways to fix it.

FYI when a prisoner in Federal Prison is about to be released, and is an illegal, usually the decision on the case has already been made, and the individual is usually deported. Rarely will they let him stay. The deportation order, which is a legal document signed by a judge. There is an appeals process, and sometimes that works. The same is true of state prisons. The deportation hearing is usually held while the guy is in prison, and as he approaches his release date, is served with the order. The Prison has to obey it, that is a court order. It isn't a request. A request is hey buddy, do this for me.

I want each case judged individually. We have immigration courts for that reason. We have a large body of established immigration law, that outline when an illegal immigrant may be granted legal status.

Right now, a vast majority of those who enter into that process are deported. Some are allowed to stay, based upon that individual merit thing.

I'd like a little more consistency, and let me give you an example of that to show you what I mean. People fleeing Venezuela are usually deported right back when they are caught. People fleeing Cuba were sent back if they were caught in the ocean, but if they made land, they were allowed to stay unless some reason existed to deny them. Generally speaking, those who made land were allowed to stay and become naturalized citizens.

That policy for Cuban's was accepted for a very long time. It started under Carter, continued under Reagan, and all the way through to Obama who finally got rid of it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you?

BS.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up. Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation agrees with the study, but they've taken a different approach than just declaring BS to information they don't like. They argue that 100% of those crimes would not occur if the Illegal Immigrants were not here.

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity

If the local cops are able legally to help, fine.

Sounds good. So when that illegal alien felon is about to be released, would you prefer the state notify the Feds before he's released or do you prefer he's released into the community, because states rights?

It depends on what they are required to do by law. If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime. I am always in opposition to the police committing crimes. I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Now, in Georgia, the cops call ICE. They hold suspected illegals for the entire time. I am not out there protesting or shouting it is unfair. I live in Georgia, and have for more than two decades. What this state does is obviously far more my concern than California, since I live here. I am not out there campaigning that we should be turning them loose. I believe Georgia has the right to address the issue the way Georgia wants to providing that it does not violate Civil Rights. States Rights do not trump Civil Rights in my book, ever.

I argued for that when the Brady Law was the issue de jour, and I am still arguing the same. I argued it when Obamacare was the issue, and the States were opting out. It is their choice, and the politicians who made those choices are still in power, so the citizens of those states approved, generally speaking. I have no issue with that. None.

Sanctuary is misused to describe the situation. No where are the police preventing ICE from arresting someone. San Francisco does not have the immigrants surrounded by the police with machine guns preventing ICE agents from making arrests. California hasn't called out the National Guard to stop ICE from grabbing anyone.

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that. One example, sure. But it is one example where the LAPD said it happened, and we would be fools to think it is the only example.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison. I want the prisons to work more towards rehabilitation and preventing the crimes of the future.

I said I was liberal by Georgia standards, But I am a RW nutter by San Fran standards. I belong to the ACLU and the NRA as well as another Second Amendment group. I agree with the ACLU on their interpretation of a vast majority of the Civil Rights. I disagree with them on the Second. I agree with the NRA that the Second is important and should be defended. That's why I am a member. I also agree with the ACLU that the rest of the civil rights must be defended as well. The NRA doesn't care about the others, except on how they affect the Second. I wish the ACLU was more pro Second Amendment, but wishes ain't fishes.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up.

Thanks for the link to the study with the BS numbers.

If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

Sounds like a stupid state law, if that's the case.
I asked what you prefer.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime.

You think there is a law preventing a cop from making a call? Sounds interesting. Link?

I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Do you support deporting illegal aliens before they commit crimes?

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that.

That's awesome! I hope we can still solve murders after deporting lots of illegal aliens.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison.

Great. After the illegal alien murderers and rapists serve their term, do you want them deported, or do you want them released back into the local community?

Link to police prohibitions.

Undocumented immigrant wins $190k after San Francisco violates 'sanctuary city' law

The Illegal Immigrant won nearly $200k in a lawsuit because Police violated the law.

Now I've been quite clear on my beliefs. I've been quite clear on every single one of your questions, and you still want to try and trick me into saying I want the Illegals to stay.

Here is what I'll say about what I think should happen. I believe each case should be judged on its own merits. If the person in question is qualified for some lieniency by the existing laws, then that leniency should be given. The same way we gave it to the Cubans who escape in a converted Pick Up truck. Each case should be judged individually. That is the law right now, and the system we have right now.

If the system isn't working, then we can discuss changes to the system to improve it. If the system is flawed, we can find ways to fix it.

FYI when a prisoner in Federal Prison is about to be released, and is an illegal, usually the decision on the case has already been made, and the individual is usually deported. Rarely will they let him stay. The deportation order, which is a legal document signed by a judge. There is an appeals process, and sometimes that works. The same is true of state prisons. The deportation hearing is usually held while the guy is in prison, and as he approaches his release date, is served with the order. The Prison has to obey it, that is a court order. It isn't a request. A request is hey buddy, do this for me.

I want each case judged individually. We have immigration courts for that reason. We have a large body of established immigration law, that outline when an illegal immigrant may be granted legal status.

Right now, a vast majority of those who enter into that process are deported. Some are allowed to stay, based upon that individual merit thing.

I'd like a little more consistency, and let me give you an example of that to show you what I mean. People fleeing Venezuela are usually deported right back when they are caught. People fleeing Cuba were sent back if they were caught in the ocean, but if they made land, they were allowed to stay unless some reason existed to deny them. Generally speaking, those who made land were allowed to stay and become naturalized citizens.

That policy for Cuban's was accepted for a very long time. It started under Carter, continued under Reagan, and all the way through to Obama who finally got rid of it.

you still want to try and trick me into saying I want the Illegals to stay.

Or you could say you want them to be deported.

If the person in question is qualified for some lieniency by the existing laws, then that leniency should be given.

Please link to any law that would give leniency to convicted felon illegal aliens.

 

[Boss]

Where did I say keep them? I said that if the cities and states don't want to be involved in it then that was a states rights issue...

AGAIN-- It cannot be a states rights issue when enumerated federal constitutional power supersedes. That is the point you're missing here. I'm one of the most outspoken supporters of state's rights. I am also a Federalist and Constitutionalist. You don't have a state's rights argument in support of sanctuary cities because immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power granted to the federal government.

Nobody is stopping the Feds. The most they are doing is hands off. They aren't calling ICE to say they have a suspected illegal, and the fax for the requests to detain drop right into the garbage. A request is asking for a favor or service. It is not a legal order like a Warrant issued by a court.

The Feds can arrest all the illegals they want. The locals are not helping. That is what the Sanctuary thing is actually doing. It is a misuse of the term. We view sanctuary like a person in a church and the authorities are powerless to do anything about it.

No one is preventing the ICE agents from going out and arresting illegals. They just aren't helping.

But the state is part of the United States, not an autonomous country. They are obligated to obey the constitution. We had a pretty nasty civil war the last time states refused to abide by federal authority. And in that case, the federal government was actually violating the constitution.

What I would like to know is why the liberal left has such a hard on for protecting illegal immigrants? I mean, I get that you view them as underdogs, the less fortunate, etc., but don't you understand they are burning through resources intended to help the less fortunate who are American citizens? They are taking jobs and driving wages down for the poor who were born here or came here legally. Does that not register with you?

 

[SavannahMann]

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you?

BS.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up. Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation agrees with the study, but they've taken a different approach than just declaring BS to information they don't like. They argue that 100% of those crimes would not occur if the Illegal Immigrants were not here.

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity

If the local cops are able legally to help, fine.

Sounds good. So when that illegal alien felon is about to be released, would you prefer the state notify the Feds before he's released or do you prefer he's released into the community, because states rights?

It depends on what they are required to do by law. If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime. I am always in opposition to the police committing crimes. I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Now, in Georgia, the cops call ICE. They hold suspected illegals for the entire time. I am not out there protesting or shouting it is unfair. I live in Georgia, and have for more than two decades. What this state does is obviously far more my concern than California, since I live here. I am not out there campaigning that we should be turning them loose. I believe Georgia has the right to address the issue the way Georgia wants to providing that it does not violate Civil Rights. States Rights do not trump Civil Rights in my book, ever.

I argued for that when the Brady Law was the issue de jour, and I am still arguing the same. I argued it when Obamacare was the issue, and the States were opting out. It is their choice, and the politicians who made those choices are still in power, so the citizens of those states approved, generally speaking. I have no issue with that. None.

Sanctuary is misused to describe the situation. No where are the police preventing ICE from arresting someone. San Francisco does not have the immigrants surrounded by the police with machine guns preventing ICE agents from making arrests. California hasn't called out the National Guard to stop ICE from grabbing anyone.

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that. One example, sure. But it is one example where the LAPD said it happened, and we would be fools to think it is the only example.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison. I want the prisons to work more towards rehabilitation and preventing the crimes of the future.

I said I was liberal by Georgia standards, But I am a RW nutter by San Fran standards. I belong to the ACLU and the NRA as well as another Second Amendment group. I agree with the ACLU on their interpretation of a vast majority of the Civil Rights. I disagree with them on the Second. I agree with the NRA that the Second is important and should be defended. That's why I am a member. I also agree with the ACLU that the rest of the civil rights must be defended as well. The NRA doesn't care about the others, except on how they affect the Second. I wish the ACLU was more pro Second Amendment, but wishes ain't fishes.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up.

Thanks for the link to the study with the BS numbers.

If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

Sounds like a stupid state law, if that's the case.
I asked what you prefer.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime.

You think there is a law preventing a cop from making a call? Sounds interesting. Link?

I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Do you support deporting illegal aliens before they commit crimes?

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that.

That's awesome! I hope we can still solve murders after deporting lots of illegal aliens.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison.

Great. After the illegal alien murderers and rapists serve their term, do you want them deported, or do you want them released back into the local community?

Link to police prohibitions.

Undocumented immigrant wins $190k after San Francisco violates 'sanctuary city' law

The Illegal Immigrant won nearly $200k in a lawsuit because Police violated the law.

Now I've been quite clear on my beliefs. I've been quite clear on every single one of your questions, and you still want to try and trick me into saying I want the Illegals to stay.

Here is what I'll say about what I think should happen. I believe each case should be judged on its own merits. If the person in question is qualified for some lieniency by the existing laws, then that leniency should be given. The same way we gave it to the Cubans who escape in a converted Pick Up truck. Each case should be judged individually. That is the law right now, and the system we have right now.

If the system isn't working, then we can discuss changes to the system to improve it. If the system is flawed, we can find ways to fix it.

FYI when a prisoner in Federal Prison is about to be released, and is an illegal, usually the decision on the case has already been made, and the individual is usually deported. Rarely will they let him stay. The deportation order, which is a legal document signed by a judge. There is an appeals process, and sometimes that works. The same is true of state prisons. The deportation hearing is usually held while the guy is in prison, and as he approaches his release date, is served with the order. The Prison has to obey it, that is a court order. It isn't a request. A request is hey buddy, do this for me.

I want each case judged individually. We have immigration courts for that reason. We have a large body of established immigration law, that outline when an illegal immigrant may be granted legal status.

Right now, a vast majority of those who enter into that process are deported. Some are allowed to stay, based upon that individual merit thing.

I'd like a little more consistency, and let me give you an example of that to show you what I mean. People fleeing Venezuela are usually deported right back when they are caught. People fleeing Cuba were sent back if they were caught in the ocean, but if they made land, they were allowed to stay unless some reason existed to deny them. Generally speaking, those who made land were allowed to stay and become naturalized citizens.

That policy for Cuban's was accepted for a very long time. It started under Carter, continued under Reagan, and all the way through to Obama who finally got rid of it.

you still want to try and trick me into saying I want the Illegals to stay.

Or you could say you want them to be deported.

If the person in question is qualified for some lieniency by the existing laws, then that leniency should be given.

Please link to any law that would give leniency to convicted felon illegal aliens.

Why provide links when you refuse to acknowledge them. I posted a link about how it was illegal for the cops to contact ICE in San Francisco, and you jump right on by that. Why haven't you commented on any of the points I've proven?

Fine, you want leniency for a felon? How about a drug smuggler who can provide information on the entire criminal gang? How about a guy who can testify that his cell mate confessed to the kidnap and murder of a child? Not only would the Goverment not deport him, but they would put him in witness protection. They do that all the time. See Sammy the Bull for an example if you wish. A known murderer who testified against Gotti. Sammy went free to get Gotti.

Another example of leniency? Coercion. If the "felon" was forced to do something like smuggle drugs to protect his family, the Court would show leniency.

It is called the Duress defense. You didn't want to do the crime, but you were threatened, or your family was compelling you to do it.

6.5 Duress, Coercion or Compulsion (Legal Excuse) | Model Jury Instructions

Notice the burden of proof. A proponderance of the evidence is enough for the Jury to find the defendant not guilty.

There are probably a million what if scenarios. Now, either you are unaware of them because nobody has ever sat down with the crayons to draw you a picture, or you don't care about those things that are in our law because Congress put them in, and the President signed them.

The Duress defense, Congress came up with the standards, and it became the law of the land. I'm not surprised you haven't considered it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do know that the illegal immigrants tape, murder, and rob at a lower rate than native born don't you?

BS.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up. Even the very conservative Heritage Foundation agrees with the study, but they've taken a different approach than just declaring BS to information they don't like. They argue that 100% of those crimes would not occur if the Illegal Immigrants were not here.

What the Media Won’t Tell You About Illegal Immigration and Criminal Activity

If the local cops are able legally to help, fine.

Sounds good. So when that illegal alien felon is about to be released, would you prefer the state notify the Feds before he's released or do you prefer he's released into the community, because states rights?

It depends on what they are required to do by law. If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime. I am always in opposition to the police committing crimes. I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Now, in Georgia, the cops call ICE. They hold suspected illegals for the entire time. I am not out there protesting or shouting it is unfair. I live in Georgia, and have for more than two decades. What this state does is obviously far more my concern than California, since I live here. I am not out there campaigning that we should be turning them loose. I believe Georgia has the right to address the issue the way Georgia wants to providing that it does not violate Civil Rights. States Rights do not trump Civil Rights in my book, ever.

I argued for that when the Brady Law was the issue de jour, and I am still arguing the same. I argued it when Obamacare was the issue, and the States were opting out. It is their choice, and the politicians who made those choices are still in power, so the citizens of those states approved, generally speaking. I have no issue with that. None.

Sanctuary is misused to describe the situation. No where are the police preventing ICE from arresting someone. San Francisco does not have the immigrants surrounded by the police with machine guns preventing ICE agents from making arrests. California hasn't called out the National Guard to stop ICE from grabbing anyone.

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that. One example, sure. But it is one example where the LAPD said it happened, and we would be fools to think it is the only example.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison. I want the prisons to work more towards rehabilitation and preventing the crimes of the future.

I said I was liberal by Georgia standards, But I am a RW nutter by San Fran standards. I belong to the ACLU and the NRA as well as another Second Amendment group. I agree with the ACLU on their interpretation of a vast majority of the Civil Rights. I disagree with them on the Second. I agree with the NRA that the Second is important and should be defended. That's why I am a member. I also agree with the ACLU that the rest of the civil rights must be defended as well. The NRA doesn't care about the others, except on how they affect the Second. I wish the ACLU was more pro Second Amendment, but wishes ain't fishes.

I posted the link to the news report of the studies. I didn't make it up.

Thanks for the link to the study with the BS numbers.

If the cop is required to turn the guy loose, according to state law, without calling anyone, then that is what the cop is supposed to do.

Sounds like a stupid state law, if that's the case.
I asked what you prefer.

If the cop called ICE, despite being prohibited from doing so, then the cop would be committing a crime.

You think there is a law preventing a cop from making a call? Sounds interesting. Link?

I am never in support of anyone committing a crime.

Do you support deporting illegal aliens before they commit crimes?

I posted the link to where the Chief of Police of the LAPD described a situation where a Murder was solved because an illegal alien spoke to the Police. The murder would have been unsolved without that.

That's awesome! I hope we can still solve murders after deporting lots of illegal aliens.

What do I want to happen to murderers, rapists, and all that? The same thing I always want to happen. I want the police to follow the rules, and build the case the right way. I want the person tried, and convicted if the evidence convinces the jury of the guilt. I want the person incarcerated in a prison.

Great. After the illegal alien murderers and rapists serve their term, do you want them deported, or do you want them released back into the local community?

Link to police prohibitions.

Undocumented immigrant wins $190k after San Francisco violates 'sanctuary city' law

The Illegal Immigrant won nearly $200k in a lawsuit because Police violated the law.

Now I've been quite clear on my beliefs. I've been quite clear on every single one of your questions, and you still want to try and trick me into saying I want the Illegals to stay.

Here is what I'll say about what I think should happen. I believe each case should be judged on its own merits. If the person in question is qualified for some lieniency by the existing laws, then that leniency should be given. The same way we gave it to the Cubans who escape in a converted Pick Up truck. Each case should be judged individually. That is the law right now, and the system we have right now.

If the system isn't working, then we can discuss changes to the system to improve it. If the system is flawed, we can find ways to fix it.

FYI when a prisoner in Federal Prison is about to be released, and is an illegal, usually the decision on the case has already been made, and the individual is usually deported. Rarely will they let him stay. The deportation order, which is a legal document signed by a judge. There is an appeals process, and sometimes that works. The same is true of state prisons. The deportation hearing is usually held while the guy is in prison, and as he approaches his release date, is served with the order. The Prison has to obey it, that is a court order. It isn't a request. A request is hey buddy, do this for me.

I want each case judged individually. We have immigration courts for that reason. We have a large body of established immigration law, that outline when an illegal immigrant may be granted legal status.

Right now, a vast majority of those who enter into that process are deported. Some are allowed to stay, based upon that individual merit thing.

I'd like a little more consistency, and let me give you an example of that to show you what I mean. People fleeing Venezuela are usually deported right back when they are caught. People fleeing Cuba were sent back if they were caught in the ocean, but if they made land, they were allowed to stay unless some reason existed to deny them. Generally speaking, those who made land were allowed to stay and become naturalized citizens.

That policy for Cuban's was accepted for a very long time. It started under Carter, continued under Reagan, and all the way through to Obama who finally got rid of it.

you still want to try and trick me into saying I want the Illegals to stay.

Or you could say you want them to be deported.

If the person in question is qualified for some lieniency by the existing laws, then that leniency should be given.

Please link to any law that would give leniency to convicted felon illegal aliens.

Why provide links when you refuse to acknowledge them. I posted a link about how it was illegal for the cops to contact ICE in San Francisco, and you jump right on by that. Why haven't you commented on any of the points I've proven?

Fine, you want leniency for a felon? How about a drug smuggler who can provide information on the entire criminal gang? How about a guy who can testify that his cell mate confessed to the kidnap and murder of a child? Not only would the Goverment not deport him, but they would put him in witness protection. They do that all the time. See Sammy the Bull for an example if you wish. A known murderer who testified against Gotti. Sammy went free to get Gotti.

Another example of leniency? Coercion. If the "felon" was forced to do something like smuggle drugs to protect his family, the Court would show leniency.

It is called the Duress defense. You didn't want to do the crime, but you were threatened, or your family was compelling you to do it.

6.5 Duress, Coercion or Compulsion (Legal Excuse) | Model Jury Instructions

Notice the burden of proof. A proponderance of the evidence is enough for the Jury to find the defendant not guilty.

There are probably a million what if scenarios. Now, either you are unaware of them because nobody has ever sat down with the crayons to draw you a picture, or you don't care about those things that are in our law because Congress put them in, and the President signed them.

The Duress defense, Congress came up with the standards, and it became the law of the land. I'm not surprised you haven't considered it.

I posted a link about how it was illegal for the cops to contact ICE in San Francisco,

That's not what the law said.

Why haven't you commented on any of the points I've proven?

I ignored the points about Cuba, for instance, because we're talking about illegal aliens already in custody.
Illegal alien felons and whether you prefer they get deported or released into the community.
Have you answered that question yet?

How about a drug smuggler who can provide information on the entire criminal gang?

Cool. Deport him after 20 years in prison, instead of 30.

How about a guy who can testify that his cell mate confessed to the kidnap and murder of a child? Not only would the Goverment not deport him, but they would put him in witness protection.

Put a rapist or murderer in witness protection? Why? Is the cellmate going to follow him back to his home country after he's deported?

There are probably a million what if scenarios.

How about the one where the felon is sent home or set free in your area?
You never said which you prefer for the illegal alien felon.

 

[WillowTree]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

If ICE notifies local authorities to hold a criminal illegal is cooperation too much to ask so someone's daughter isn't shot dead in the streets?

 

[Tresha91203]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Detaining someone you already have in custody is not the same as enforcing federal immigration laws. When one state detains someone in custody for up to 30 days during interstate extraditions, is Louisiana enforcing Montana laws? When the Feds do the same for an international extradition, is the US enforcing French law?

If Sheriff Joe Blow hold prisoners for another state, what is the problem doing the same for the Feds who PAY them?

I say fine. Let San Francisco or Portland provide sanctuary for illegals. They can do so with their own money, however. If that illegal leaves his sanctuary, the sanctuary should be liable for any crimes and damage.

 

[SavannahMann]

Where did I say keep them? I said that if the cities and states don't want to be involved in it then that was a states rights issue...

AGAIN-- It cannot be a states rights issue when enumerated federal constitutional power supersedes. That is the point you're missing here. I'm one of the most outspoken supporters of state's rights. I am also a Federalist and Constitutionalist. You don't have a state's rights argument in support of sanctuary cities because immigration and naturalization is an enumerated power granted to the federal government.

Nobody is stopping the Feds. The most they are doing is hands off. They aren't calling ICE to say they have a suspected illegal, and the fax for the requests to detain drop right into the garbage. A request is asking for a favor or service. It is not a legal order like a Warrant issued by a court.

The Feds can arrest all the illegals they want. The locals are not helping. That is what the Sanctuary thing is actually doing. It is a misuse of the term. We view sanctuary like a person in a church and the authorities are powerless to do anything about it.

No one is preventing the ICE agents from going out and arresting illegals. They just aren't helping.

But the state is part of the United States, not an autonomous country. They are obligated to obey the constitution. We had a pretty nasty civil war the last time states refused to abide by federal authority. And in that case, the federal government was actually violating the constitution.

What I would like to know is why the liberal left has such a hard on for protecting illegal immigrants? I mean, I get that you view them as underdogs, the less fortunate, etc., but don't you understand they are burning through resources intended to help the less fortunate who are American citizens? They are taking jobs and driving wages down for the poor who were born here or came here legally. Does that not register with you?

Before the Civil War and even during it, the Underground Railroad was shipping Slaves out of the southern states. This was in violation of Federal Law. There was a law that said that anyone who did this was committing a Felony. Funny thing is that I never heard of anyone who was arrested, or charged with the crime. I guess the US Marshall's were busy then.

The Northern States didn't bother enforcing the law either. It was the law of the land, for a constitutional practice, Slavery was constitutional at the time. Would you have been out there demanding that the local police arrest not only the escaped slaves, but the people helping them?

I mentioned that not as a similar situation, but one where the law of the land was flaunted by pretty much everyone. At most, when a slave was caught, the slave was sent back. The people helping the slaves were not.

Now, you assume that I view things one way, or another. I've said many times that I'm viewing the actions of the Sanctuary Cities as a States Rights issue. They are not hampering ICE. Arrests are up. So other than loudly flaunting that they aren't helping, there is nothing sanctuary going on. Why is that a problem to you? Must you help the police? If the police are searching for someone, do you rush out to your car and start driving around hoping to find them? Do you study the most wanted pictures, hoping to spot one of them? If not, how would you know if you saw one? Why, a bad guy could be passing you every day on the street and you are just letting him go.

Georgia is actively searching for Illegal Immigrants. I am not in the street protesting, and I'm not writing here, or anywhere, that it's wrong. If Georgia cops are empowered, and the political masters want that approach, fine with me. If Georgia was sitting on their hands, and doing nothing, I'd be fine too.

 

[Tresha91203]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

Ah, a batter steps to the plate. Swing and a miss.

The Supreme Court did not agree with you. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to require the local police to enforce Federal Law. The idea is simple.

Let's say you and I are both managers for the same company. Let's say the company makes widgets. You are in charge of security. I am in charge of manufacturing the widgets. I come to you and say I want your security people to help out in production. You tell me no, your people are responsible for security, not production. I would be wrong in expecting you to have your people do my job for me.

Federal Law is enforced by Federal Agents. Local laws are enforced by local cops. It's that simple. ICE is free to run around and arrest all the illegals they want. The local cops won't interfere, but aren't going to lift a finger to help. The same way that local cops quit enforcing State Marijuana laws when some states legalized. The DEA can still arrest and prosecute people, but the locals aren't going to help.

Both ICE and the DEA are used to having the locals do most of the work for them. Find the pot smokers, arresting them, and if it is a big enough bust, the Feds step in and take over.

I have no heartburn with the idea of letting the Feds do their own thing, I do object to local cops enforcing Federal law.

The background check you say is happening when the cops conduct a traffic stop is a check for wants and warrants. It isn't done in every interaction, and it isn't done for everyone in the car normally. If a cop pulls over a bus with a Church Rock Band, they aren't going to run wants and warrants for everyone. If the bus is involved in an accident, Especially a minor one, they may not run wants and warrants on anyone.

The background check the OP is referring to is for firearm purchases. The Feds can't require the states to run and pay for background checks required by federal law but not state law. This is something different.

Some states may have some clauses in their constitutions that prohibit them from determining citizenship status. Most do not. Sheriffs routinely hold violators for other federal crimes. I've never heard of a hate crime perpetrator being released because "we don't like your law so we don't have to enforce it!" Sheriffs routinely detain people for up to 30 days during interstate extraditions. Ever heard of Florida letting a gangbanger with an Illinois warrant go after 24 hours because Illinois is too slow? That is what is going on.

Sanctuary city arrests random illegal for DUI. ICE calls and says to hold the guy because he's been deported twice already and we'll send someone to get him. Sheriff releases illegal after 12 hours because we are a sanctuary and you can't make us do your job! Same sheriff holds gangbanger for 17 days until the NOPD can get someone up there for him. How screwed up is that. We don't mind doing your job for you if some American gets whisked off and locked up but we are a sanctuary for illegal alien criminals.

It's not about sending local PD's on immigration raids. It is about not releasing the ones arrested for an additional crime while the Feds come pick him up, just like you would when a citizen gets arrested and the Feds or another state wants to come get him.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Now, you assume that I view things one way, or another. I've said many times that I'm viewing the actions of the Sanctuary Cities as a States Rights issue.

While that may certainly be your opinion on the matter, I will take it a step further and say that it is flawed.

Coming here illegally is a federal offense. Harboring them in your municipality (offering them sanctuary) because you feel sorry for them is essentially aiding and abetting a criminal.

What is the federal government there for? Among other things to protect the welfare of the citizenry. That requires it to enforce our sovereignty. Our borders. When you are creating sanctuary states and cities, you are defying that sovereignty. You are telling the federal government that it no longer has the ability to enforce its own power over who comes in or out. See anything wrong with that?

It defeats the purpose of having a union when you let cities and states dictate immigration policy to the federal government.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law

How else can a nation enforce its borders? When you let a state or municipality dictate to the higher government what the policy on immigration should be instead of the other way around, you are hindering the ability of the higher government to perform its constitutionally mandated duties.

Your premise is off base to say the least.

When the higher government is succumbing to the wills of uber liberal states and municipalities who enforce sanctuary policy, and an illegal breaks in my house, steals from me or tries to kill me, I could easily say that the government's lack of a spine cost me my fifth amendment rights. The right to life, liberty, and property. Isn't it the responsibility of the government to protect my constitutional rights?

 

[SavannahMann]

Now, you assume that I view things one way, or another. I've said many times that I'm viewing the actions of the Sanctuary Cities as a States Rights issue.

While that may certainly be your opinion on the matter, I will take it a step further and say that it is flawed.

Coming here illegally is a federal offense. Harboring them in your municipality (offering them sanctuary) because you feel sorry for them is essentially aiding and abetting a criminal.

What is the federal government there for? Among other things to protect the welfare of the citizenry. That requires it to enforce our sovereignty. Our borders. When you are creating sanctuary states and cities, you are defying that sovereignty. You are telling the federal government that it no longer has the ability to enforce its own power over who comes in or out. See anything wrong with that?

It defeats the purpose of having a union when you let cities and states dictate immigration policy to the federal government.

But that isn't happening. Sanctuary is being misused. No local cops are preventing ICE from arresting anyone they want. The local cops aren't forming a barrier and preventing ICE agents from entering the city.

ICE agents have the same authority in California that they have everywhere else. What they don't have is cooperation from the locals.

Sanctuary makes it sound like the ICE agents can't arrest folks in the cities or state. That is not the case. A more accurate term would be apathy. The cities and states we are talking about just don't care.

Police in San Francisco or Los Angeles aren't going to lift one finger to help ICE agents. Now ICE agents being lazy want others to do their work for them. They want the local cops to do everything short of actually deporting the illegal.

Anything less than that is sanctuary. As I said, it is misused. We are accustomed to the word being used when a person wanted is safe within a church, protected from the authorities who want him. The way that Noriega was surrounded by the Army in Panama as he stayed in the church. Or the way that Assange is safe within the Embassy.

That isn't the case. All the locals are saying in Sanctuary cities is you are on your own. Good luck with that.