Sanctuary Cities

[Make Angels Great Again]

10 minutes ago, Tank said:

while there's a fair amount i don't know about sanctuary cities, i don't like the idea of cities telling the feds that they don't feel they have to comply with federal laws that they may not agree with.

 

This is right where i'm at.

[arch stanton]

What federal law are they not in compliance with?

[Amazing Larry]

29 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

What federal law are they not in compliance with?

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5684.html

[IEAngelsfan]

Anyone else reading the thread title with Quasimodo's voice?

[arch stanton]

1 hour ago, Lawrence said:

https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-5684.html

I was referring to the local governments. What law are they not in compliance with?

[Jay]

Not sure which statutes local governments might be violating if any.

What we're seeing is a failure of local governments to protect their citizens by harboring criminal illegal immigrants.

This is a calculated political decision on the part of liberal mayors who think they will get more votes by doing this.

In the case of San Francisco, they were holding a dangerous criminal illegal immigrant named Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. The feds asked S.F. to hold the guy until they could come and get him. San Francisco released the guy and he murdered Kate Steinle. The dude had several felony convictions and had been previously deported 5 times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Steinle

 

[arch stanton]

That's one way to spin it. The other is that if there's feds crawling all over then people who could help will be wary of reporting crimes or giving testimony which in turn makes the city less safe overall. Is it the fault of the city that the feds allowed the man to enter the country at will? If they had handed him over wouldn't it just be a small delay in the inevitable? So isn't it the government that collects hundreds of billions in taxes every year that is really letting the people down?

[Jay]

I'm sure the libs will want to spin it some other way.

 

[arch stanton]

How should people who want an actual solution be spinning it?

[Amazing Larry]

The solution is to arrest and hold illegal immigrants who have broken the law (redundant I know) until the Feds pick them up. It's quite simple really.

[arch stanton]

But apparently not nearly as simple as crossing the border at one's leisure. Sixth time was a charm for old Juan Francisco.

[Jay]

10 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

How should people who want an actual solution be spinning it?

The spin isn't going to be very effective once you go outside of the sanctuary cities. People outside of L.A., S.F., N.Y, CHI will likely have no sympathy for those mayors.

Not a coincidence the sanctuary cities all have liberal Democrat mayors. Previously they had Obama to protect them but that's over now.

 

[Jay]

2 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

But apparently not nearly as simple as crossing the border at one's leisure. Sixth time was a charm for old Juan Francisco.

Absolutely correct on this point. No reason that he should have been deported 5 times previously. That dude should have been locked up somewhere.

But absolutely no justification for S.F. to release him after the feds asked them to detain.

 

[mtangelsfan]

3 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

But apparently not nearly as simple as crossing the border at one's leisure. Sixth time was a charm for old Juan Francisco.

Shouldn't both the border be tightened and cities do their part?  Why does one have to happen before the other?

[Jay]

Of course. It's been an overall non-enforcement of immigration law and lax border security.

 

 

[arch stanton]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Shouldn't both the border be tightened and cities do their part?  Why does one have to happen before the other?

When should we start threatening to withhold federal funds from the branch that's responsible for border security?

[mtangelsfan]

I am not in agreement with withholding federal funds.  I am not in agreement with federal funds to begin with.  Those funds should never have left the area to begin with.

I am in agreement with one simple thing:  follow federal law in regards to illegal immigration or be ready to go to jail.  The willingness to break the law is easy when there are no consequences.

[Jay]

3 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

When should we start threatening to withhold federal funds from the branch that's responsible for border security?

That would be the Executive Branch, led by President Obama.

 

[arch stanton]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

That would be the Executive Branch, led by President Obama.

 

And many others before him. This didn't start in 2008.

[Amazing Larry]

Times are a changin'.

[Jay]

But it's about to end, hopefully.

 

[arch stanton]

I'm not holding my breath. He's already creating excuses for failure.

[AngelsLongBall]

And the LA Times weighs in

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-immigration-los-angeles-20161115-story.html

Apparently crossing the border and residing in the US without authorization is not a crime according to this editorial

[Jason]

California is retarded

[Jay]

31 minutes ago, AngelsLongBall said:

And the LA Times weighs in

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-trump-immigration-los-angeles-20161115-story.html

Apparently crossing the border and residing in the US without authorization is not a crime according to this editorial

The reader comments are pretty one-sided...