What human cost is acceptable in controling illegal immigration?

[francoHFW]

Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump:

"If you are smuggling a child then we will prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you as required by law," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday at a law enforcement conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. "If you don't like that, then don't smuggle children over our border."

Administration officials explained that the goal of the program is 100 percent prosecution of all who enter the U.S. illegally. When adults are prosecuted and jailed, their children will be separated from them, just as would happen for a U.S. citizen convicted and jailed.​

Anguish at Southwest border as more immigrant children are separated from parents

The Trump administration's willingness to take children from their parents has raised concerns about how far authorities should go to stem unauthorized border crossings and what human cost is acceptable in the name of border security and immigration control.

"There is something terrible happening here that Americans would not support if they understood it," said F. Scott McCown, director of the Children’s Rights Clinic at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.​

I don't care how much you hate illegal immigrants this is EVIL. You are punishing the children. It's abhorrant and wrong and inexcusable. I hope they rot in hell for this. 700 children so far have been seperated from the only family they know and lost to our often incompetent and mismanaged child care system. I fail to see how any parent could support actions like these.

When parents are held for prosecution, their children are turned over to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The children are then designated as "unaccompanied minors," and the government tries to connect them to family members who are already in the U.S. Until then, children wait in shelters or are sent to federally contracted foster homes, often without parents being told exactly where they are, immigration advocates said.

It may soon become even more difficult to place children with relatives. The Department of Homeland Security is proposing immigration checks be done on all people in a household who may take in these "unaccompanied" children, which means relatives who are undocumented may be less likely to come forward.

In the meantime, space in shelters and foster homes is limited; The Washington Post reported the administration plans to open facilities at military bases to house some of the separated children.​

Maybe obey our Laws and enter the Country legally? It's a thought.

I have no problem with that. I have no problem with a hearing and, if determined deportation.

Do you think it's necessary to inact this draconian policy in the meantime?

My understanding is that it would be inhumane to house small children in adult detention facilities with potential pedophiles or other serious criminals. Kind of makes sense doesn't? Would you want your 8 year old child housed in a maximum security prison with adult male inmates? My guess is probably not.

That is why kids are adults are separated. Plus...it is the Law. And we are a Nation of Laws or should be.

People are worried about all the people asking for Asylum and their children. Thanks to the drug war back home great job.

 

[francoHFW]

to

If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.

The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city. If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.

BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law. The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals. Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city. They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality. In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it. If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right. You can't make them.

Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

I have been a juror in Denver, and too many of the plaintiffs were just illegal Mexicans that just ended up being deported. OH, they had families and houses and that ended badly for them Imagine being a juror in that mess. I despise our local or state government for putting us in this position, either way. Nobody got a vote on whether or not we wanted illegals, they just sort of magical and extra judicially/legally appeared here. What is the human cost of allowing illegal aliens? Millions of dollars in wasted time debating this pointless issue. Nobody else in American history has ever gotten sanctuary given to them before.

What is your solution, I believe the only solution is amnesty for the Worthy and computer chip ID card to stop more coming....

 

[francoHFW]

If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.

The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city. If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.

BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law. The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals. Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city. They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality. In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it. If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right. You can't make them.

Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.

The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city. If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.

BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law. The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals. Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city. They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality. In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it. If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right. You can't make them.

Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

Don't tell me what to do troll.

 

[francoHFW]

If you look up "sanctuary cities" you will find that it is NOT a part of the democratic process. It is actually antidemocratic and imposed on us without our consent...And that, given the fact how illegals have disrupted and otherwise shattered our lower class into oblivion, I am not liking this situation to much.

The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city. If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.

BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law. The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals. Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city. They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality. In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it. If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right. You can't make them.

Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

I have been a juror in Denver, and too many of the plaintiffs were just illegal Mexicans that just ended up being deported. OH, they had families and houses and that ended badly for them Imagine being a juror in that mess. I despise our local or state government for putting us in this position, either way. Nobody got a vote on whether or not we wanted illegals, they just sort of magical and extra judicially/legally appeared here. What is the human cost of allowing illegal aliens? Millions of dollars in wasted time debating this pointless issue. Nobody else in American history has ever gotten sanctuary given to them before.

When Reagan granted amnesty the GOP blocked the ID cards and enforcement needed 2 stop them from coming and getting jobs and paying taxes and buying houses. The GOP caused this and now block the solution again. GOP sucks.

 

[MaryL]

All people get to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy. They voted on legalizing marijuana even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.

 

[francoHFW]

The reality of sanctuary cities is that most of the people that live there simply don't want wholesale deportation of families, friends, employees, and employers that are doing no harm and in some cases an asset to the city. If you live in a sanctuary city and disagree, then vote the suckers out of office.

BTW, a sanctuary city simply limits their cooperation with the federal government's effort to enforce immigration law. The degree of cooperation varies widely between cities just as it varies between individuals. Some city councils pass resolutions declaring that they are a sanctuary city. They don't require that their employees do anything but encourage citizens to respect their neighbors regardless of their nationality. In most of these cities, there is nothing the federal government can do about it. If people don't want to cooperate with the government that is there right. You can't make them.

Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

Don't tell me what to do troll.

Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...

 

[TemplarKormac]

We are a nation of laws but we also can exercise discretion.

Interesting...

How much? How much discretion is required for it to be acceptable?

You say we're a nation of laws. Are we? Are we a nation of laws when we continually look for ways to circumvent them like we do with immigration? Like states and cities do with sanctuary laws?

Families don’t have to be housed in with serious offenders. Kids don’t have to be removed. We exercised this discretion before why not now?

That's like saying there should be no consequences for their coming here illegally. If they aren't going to obey our laws with one set of consequences, then another continuum of consequences must be set in place. The severity of the punishment must be enhanced.

What do you think would serve as a reliable and "humane" deterrent?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not when liberal activist judges have anything to say about it.........no.

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

Don't tell me what to do troll.

Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...

LOL You called him a traitor.

That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.

 

[francoHFW]

All people get to chime in here. They voted for Trump. some didn't, that's democracy. They voted on legalizing marijuana even, but not ONCE anywhere have we Americans got to VOTE on allowing the state to skirt, no, flaunt federal immigration laws. It's shocking actually. Most of us would like to get to vote on that, being that this is still a democracy and all. So why can't we vote on that? Does that threaten somebody? We can't leave this up to a rabble after all.

Yes it's threatens a lot of people who the GOP invited to come here and work and pay taxes and own homes. The ones who play the game will be allowed to stay or the GOP will be voted out big time. Their base is a brainwashed Rabble. But stop more from coming, a wall won't do it. I only see an ID card and enforcement at employment and everywhere else for that matter. Legalize pot and help their countries and our opioid addicts...

 

[francoHFW]

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

Don't tell me what to do troll.

Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...

LOL You called him a traitor.

That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.

People who denigrate our esteemed institutions with no evidence are deplorable.

 

[francoHFW]

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

Don't tell me what to do troll.

Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...

LOL You called him a traitor.

That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.

People who denigrate our esteemed institutions with no evidence are deplorable.

. our justice system is the one that comes to mind. They are straight arrows overeager if anything... This email scandal thing is getting out of hand on the right wing propaganda machine, super dupers. Emails are b******* LOL.

 

[francoHFW]

You duped jackasses want the justice system to to investigate your phony scandals. It's already been done and your scandals are total crap propaganda.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

Don't tell me what to do troll.

Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...

LOL You called him a traitor.

That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.

People who denigrate our esteemed institutions with no evidence are deplorable.

It's a free country. A free country elected Trump. I'm sorry you can't handle that.

In the event you grow a spine, perhaps you will learn to deal with it.

 

[Flopper]

Hate to break your bubble, but Mexico does not send these people to the US. Although Mexico is a lot tougher on illegals than we are, a lot get through and they probably don't do much to stop them.

Mexico could certainly do a better job stopping these people in their country so they do not reach our boarder. However, why should they do that? Exactly what is the US doing for Mexico other than insulting and threatening them daily. US Mexican relations are the worst they been in decades, thanks to Trump so I certainly wouldn't expect any help from them on immigration or drug enforcement.

Is that what you think? Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?

Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have. They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.

Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem. They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem. They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem. Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.

Solution to our problem? Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.

It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.

You don't seem to get it. It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders. Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?

You're being incredible xenophobia. You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making. You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.

If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress. Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office. The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.

But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one. The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible. Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states? Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law? Why do you suppose they are really against the wall? Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?

If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border. We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.

Your prospective is clouded by extremist views. All democrat do not want to get every immigrant possible into the country and every republican doesn't want to deport 12 million people. Left leaning democrats and right leaning republican have even less stronger views and true independents tend to swing back and forth on issues. So there is plenty of middle ground.

There are several trends that indicate that the illegal immigration problem will become less of a problem in coming years. Better jobs in Mexico, better pay for farm and factory workers, and better security on our boarder has resulted in a drop in the undocumented immigration population. Pew Research estimated that the numbers have dropped several million. And there no reason to think that that the number will not continue to drop. With the right kind of legislation we can see those numbers drop even faster.

Are you going to stand by that? Okay......one more time:

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and states?

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep the wall from being built; so strongly to the point that they even threatened to shut down the government over it?

Why did Democrats defeat Kate's Law; a law that would imprison felons who returned back to the country after deportation?

Every action they take can only be answered one way: they want as many immigrants in this country as possible. If they ever gain total control over the federal government again, they will grant citizenship to each and every one, and along with citizenship comes the right to vote.

The goal of the Democrat party is to make this country a single-party government forever.

• The primary reason people, both democrats and some republicans support their sanctuary city is they believe undocumented immigrants living in their community doing no harm should not be deported. For example, a friend of our family has had a maid, Camila who has been with them for over 10 years. Her husband has a roofing business. They both over stayed their visas many years ago. They came to the US with their 2 kids and had two more while in the states. Today, they live in terror that they will be deported breaking up their family. If deported, the guidelines required they be banned from entering the country for a minimum of 10 year to life. And what did they do to deserve such punish? Nothing. They simply overstayed their visa, a civil infraction, not even a crime. To answer your question, there are many people like Camila and her family that I would do all that I can to make sure she stays in this country. I have no problem deporting drug dealers, gang members and felons, but not people who don't deserve such harsh punishment.
• I can't answer for all Democrats but for myself, I believe there is far better solution than a 2000 mile wall. Trump has already said, he was willing to consider not putting a wall in places where there was a natural barrier such as rivers or mountains. I think he's on the right track but it needs to be expanded. We should supply the type security needed for the area whether it be a wall, fence, electronic surveillance, or increased border patrol. A 2,000 mile wall across our southern border would be a lasting symbol of American fear, hatred and isolationism.
• I'm not familiar with Kate's Law so, I can't comment.

 

[Flopper]

Not sure about that. Read about Portugal after 10 years of decriminalization of all drugs. With the illegal drug business estimated at 40 billion a year and growing rapidly, we will reach a point where we will have no choice. I'm not in favor of it but we're running out of options. The war on drugs was lost decades ago. There is no way we can control the growing use of illegal drugs.
Ten Years Ago Portugal Decriminalized All Drugs. What Happened Next? | The Fix

There's possibly a minor flipside to legalizing drugs.

The cartels will see their cash cow dwindle away. It is possible, likely even, that those drug wars will move across our border and we might see Americans killed in their own country if the cartels see legalization as competition.

Of course, that's conjecture. But legitimate conjecture, I think.

I don't know what they could do about it. Haven't heard of that type of problem in other countries that have legalized. I would suspect they would do exactly what the Mafia did in the 30's when prohibition was ended, go into other businesses such as drugs in other countries, gambling, prostration, ect..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is that what you think? Then how did our media pickup on the fact this current crop of people were on their way here two weeks before they arrived?

Of course Mexico allows them to come here; they always have. They know why they are coming here and give them their blessing.

Mexico allows them to come here, and then they are our problem. They bring kids with them, and then they are our problem. They disappear and never show up for court, and then they are our problem. Gangs form and sell drugs, and then that is our problem.

Solution to our problem? Close the southern border down completely. I'm sick of problems invading our country and then we have to spend the money and find a solution to those problems.

It's pretty hard not to notice hundreds of people marching across the country headed toward the US boarder.

You don't seem to get it. It is not the responsibility of Mexico to protect our boarders. Does the US stop people headed for the Mexican boarder or the Canadian border?

You're being incredible xenophobia. You consider Honduran families fleeing from violence and seeking refuge as invaders when the problem is not of their making. You lay the blame for gangs selling drugs on immigrants when the real problem is the US huge demand for illegal drugs.

If you're really tired of this shit, then you should be supporting a plan that will actually work regardless of who is in the white house or which party is controlling congress. Trump can't possible come anywhere close to deporting 12 million undocumented immigrants during his term in office. The deportations he's doing now is barely keeping up with the inflow of immigrants. Without support from both parties, nothing is going to change.

But you're never going to get support from both parties--only one. The Democrats goal is to get as many of these immigrants into this country as possible. Why do you suppose they are fighting to keep their sanctuary cities and states? Why do you suppose they stopped Kate's Law? Why do you suppose they are really against the wall? Does this sound like a group of people wanting to stop illegal immigration?

If the US allowed a band of Mexicans to cross our country into Canada, then yes, the US is responsible for not stopping them long before they hit the Canadian border. We should have stopped them at the Mexican border.

Your prospective is clouded by extremist views. All democrat do not want to get every immigrant possible into the country and every republican doesn't want to deport 12 million people. Left leaning democrats and right leaning republican have even less stronger views and true independents tend to swing back and forth on issues. So there is plenty of middle ground.

There are several trends that indicate that the illegal immigration problem will become less of a problem in coming years. Better jobs in Mexico, better pay for farm and factory workers, and better security on our boarder has resulted in a drop in the undocumented immigration population. Pew Research estimated that the numbers have dropped several million. And there no reason to think that that the number will not continue to drop. With the right kind of legislation we can see those numbers drop even faster.

Are you going to stand by that? Okay......one more time:

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep their sanctuary cities and states?

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep the wall from being built; so strongly to the point that they even threatened to shut down the government over it?

Why did Democrats defeat Kate's Law; a law that would imprison felons who returned back to the country after deportation?

Every action they take can only be answered one way: they want as many immigrants in this country as possible. If they ever gain total control over the federal government again, they will grant citizenship to each and every one, and along with citizenship comes the right to vote.

The goal of the Democrat party is to make this country a single-party government forever.

• The primary reason people, both democrats and some republicans support their sanctuary city is they believe undocumented immigrants living in their community doing no harm should not be deported. For example, a friend of our family has had a maid, Camila who has been with them for over 10 years. Her husband has a roofing business. They both over stayed their visas many years ago. They came to the US with their 2 kids and had two more while in the states. Today, they live in terror that they will be deported breaking up their family. If deported, the guidelines required they be banned from entering the country for a minimum of 10 year to life. And what did they do to deserve such punish? Nothing. They simply overstayed their visa, a civil infraction, not even a crime. To answer your question, there are many people like Camila and her family that I would do all that I can to make sure she stays in this country. I have no problem deporting drug dealers, gang members and felons, but not people who don't deserve such harsh punishment.
• I can't answer for all Democrats but for myself, I believe there is far better solution than a 2000 mile wall. Trump has already said, he was willing to consider not putting a wall in places where there was a natural barrier such as rivers or mountains. I think he's on the right track but it needs to be expanded. We should supply the type security needed for the area whether it be a wall, fence, electronic surveillance, or increased border patrol. A 2,000 mile wall across our southern border would be a lasting symbol of American fear, hatred and isolationism.
• I'm not familiar with Kate's Law so, I can't comment.

Kate's Law was designed by the Republicans in remembrance of Kate Steinle who was shot by an illegal that was deported several times and repeatedly came back. Claiming it was an accident that he "found" a stolen police officers gun, shot it accidentally, and killed this young woman, he got off scott free.

Prior to that court decision, Kate's Law would have required that any illegal felon deported that came back and caught would face the minimum of five years in prison. Democrats stopped that law when they led the Senate. San Francisco is a SANCTUARY CITY, and after a prior infraction, ICE asked them to hold this lowlife until they could get to him. They refused.

So ask yourself, why would Democrats stop a law that banned criminals from coming back to this country? Once again, the answer is simple: they don't care about Americans, they care about getting as many foreigners into this country as they can (criminal or not) so they can create a single-party government.

This has nothing to do with your friend maid, your lawn care guy, or the illegal at the car wash. It's a smoke screen. The Democrat party became the anti-white party who's goal is to make whites a minority in this country as soon as possible. If and when they can do that, we will be a one party country forever.

Look for the man behind the curtain.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It is all our wonderful justice system. Appeal it or it is the right thing. And I don't want to hear any stupid conspiracy theories.

Bull. What law is there that states the federal government MUST provide funds to anybody? Trump threatened to cut funds to sanctuary cities, and a commie judge forbade it.

As I said, appeal it or shut the f******.

Don't tell me what to do troll.

Be a misinformed traitor then lol... This is the Trump disgrace so far, and fox Etc making up garbage about our justice system...

LOL You called him a traitor.

That's funny. Because he's not. You can't call everyone who disagrees with you a traitor.

He can't help it. That's what trolls do.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Kind of humorous that when the courts discriminate, it's called discretion. Ha. I saw that term in the thread some place.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The primary reason people, both democrats and some republicans support their sanctuary city is they believe undocumented immigrants living in their community doing no harm should not be deported.

The flaw in that argument is this:

The harm was committed when they came here illegally. So they have caused harm, by legal standards. While it might not have been harmful to you when they came here illegally, it is harm according to the law.

Another thing is that these "laws" are not having the desired effect, they are being used to shield criminal illegals as well.

Only laws like these can be abused so easily, and that was most likely the reasoning behind them.