Well they sure do although I don't believe they share all the rights citizens do.

The Sanctuary Cities have more rights than you Spence. They can harbor
criminals without penalty. You can't. Try and harbor a criminal in your house or town and see how quick you go to jail.
So tell me , how is that part of the libs call for fairness?
.

Simple, because victims deserve more fairness than the people who prey upon the victims. The illegal is the victim, ICE is the remorseless predator.

Right. Can I unilaterally declare my house to be a sanctuary from income tax? How long would I get away with that?

Simply not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please tell me where I'm going wrong.

Primarily because being on US soil illegally isn't a crime, it's a civil violation. If an undocumented person has criminal charges against them they certainly can be held, but when ICE requests a person be detained simply to evaluate deportation priority there isn't a lot of legal justification from what I've read.

let's just call it trespassing

Trespassing

You commit a criminal trespass whenever you enter onto property which you know you do not have the right to enter, or remain on property after learning you do not have the right to be there. Trespassing can occur on both private and public property, and you do not have to receive a verbal warning that the property is off limits. Even if you enter a structure or property with the owner's permission, you can still commit trespassing if the owner later orders you to leave but you choose to remain.

Penalties

A person convicted of criminal trespass faces a range of penalties. In most criminal trespass situations courts do not impose significant jail penalties, fines, or lengthy probation periods, though the potential penalties differ among states, depending on the circumstances of the case and the laws in your state, a trespassing conviction can lead to a significant jail sentence and other penalties.

Just remember.
Calling an illegal Alien an undocumented citizen is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who calls them undocumented citizens?

I wonder if it will be acceptable if some cities or states declare themselves "sanctuaries" for "documented Americans" who want to avoid certain decisions being made at the federal level.....:huh:

"Huh? "Undocumented citizens"? The linguistic purist in me balked. Unlike "undocumented immigrants," the genteel euphemism for "illegal aliens," the phrase "undocumented citizens" was a contradiction in terms.

But as a Freudian slip it made sense. The speaker, despite her professions of homage to the rule of law, deep down probably thought that the distinction between an illegal immigrant and a citizen was a technicality. It was the same sentiment behind T-shirts at last year's immigration rally in Los Angeles that said: "I'm illegal. So what?"

"Undocumented citizen" has been popping up in other places. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, whose portfolio includes immigration, was asked at a conference in February about congressional restrictions that made it hard for social-service agencies to serve "undocumented citizens."

Chertoff didn't call the questioner on his inaccuracy, but the phrase has offended the ears of some conservatives. TV talk show host Glenn Beck had some fun recently with a Florida legislator who wants to abolish the term "illegal alien," which she says "makes people think of beings from outer space." (Really?) Her preferred term: That's right, "undocumented citizens."

This war of words over what to call 12 million non-citizens is more than another example of loose-talking liberals providing ammunition to conservative critics of "political correctness." Semantics aside, liberals on immigration reform—a group in which I count myself —too often give short shrift to the problem posed for many Americans by the fact that illegal aliens broke the law."

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe...y03-story.html


"GOP Congressman Calls Illegal Aliens "Undocumented Citizens", Trusts Obama Administration

By Jon Feere, August 8, 2013

While holding a town hall meeting, Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) was caught on video supporting amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, people he calls "undocumented citizens". In response to a question from a woman with illegal alien family members who have been in the country for over 13 years, he illustrated a lack of understanding of immigration policy and unjustifiable faith in the Obama administration to secure the border. Seven problems with his response are analyzed below. Here's his quote:

Undocumented citizens should have to come forward, they should have to self-identify, they should pay a penalty and back taxes, and the............."




Ben Rodgers @BenRodgers1
Two undocumented citizens were arrested at the #IAFreedomSummit while protesting http://goo.gl/wEQEjr via @DMRegister
11:11 PM - 24 Jan 2015
Des Moines Register

Thanks scott :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This immigration stuff is nothing more then political BS to get votes, not what's good for America.
What ever happened to our quota system???
Seal the border with a wall, use high tech detection systems, drones, etc. whatever.
THEN, send back all those who have committed crimes here first, followed by those who came here illegally crime free, who can be funneled back through the quota system.
Quotas are set for a reason, to prevent chaos like this.

Exceptions could be made for those who have become citizens and have children who have followed illegally with a requirement for them to become citizens within one year, if over 18 yrs. and by age 18 if under that age.
All those with past criminal records are banned.
We are not a criminal refuse country.

^ king Phillip tried this in the late 1600's and it didn't work out so well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's pretty much Trump's plan. Except nobody but you and Donald seem to think it's feasible.

With enough fire power and explosives anything is possible Jeff
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let's hear your plan, Spence. :huh: No selective hearing here. :doh:

No, I think it's more along the lines of Charles Krauthammer, and good old common sense.

Ok, we'll add Chuck to the list and now we're up to three.

four....."common sense"

Thinking it's feasible to deport 11 million + people defies common sense, hence it didn't make the cut.

if we can import we can export...thinking we can't do something like that defies common sense....thinking we can adopt 11 million(probably a lot more in reality) people as citizens who came here illegally and the flood will just slow "defies common sense" and destroys any future hope of controlling our borders or maintaining a legal immigration system that has any merit or purpose....common sense makes the cut because it excludes all progressives who seem to operate on the notion that they can outsmart common sense and have good results...

"Import" implies a deliberate act, we didn't import 11 million illegals.

so you're saying they shouldn't be here....and by the way, much has been deliberate, I think both sides would agree whether you place the bulk of blame on business or government policy...

Spence, that is your opinion. If the original immigrant policy was enforced we wouldn't be in this mess.
You forgot to answer the question- "Let's hear your plan, Spence." :hihi:

You don't think it's feasible to deport the ones who have committed crimes here? Eisenhower, in 1954, deported all the illegals they could round-up, whether they had committed a crime or not. He deported over one million. It was called, amazingly, Operation Wetback. Not the most sensitive name to give the operation, but it showed that large-scale deportations aren't logistically impossible.

Spence this is my third request.

"Let's hear your plan, Spence."
You libs are supposed to want fairness, how can you leave this thread after
knocking my plan without giving me a shot at yours. :hihi: :D

I think we've discussed this in the past. Rubio's own plan which he ditched once Obama pretty much called for the same thing was a good start. Enable the Dreamers, give status for those who register, increase penalties for those who employ and work to keep the criminals out.

I didn't say impossible I said feasible.

In 1954 the Mexican government wanted their people back because they needed the labor, it's a totally different scenario. Also back then I don't think people were woven and dispersed like they are now.

Perhaps even a bigger factor. In California which was a focus of the Operation about 8% of the State was of Hispanic/Latino decent...today that number is around 30%.