Sanctuary cities

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

I think he types these up some time so they can swept into the cloud and get recycled in other places. I like Spence, great choice in Beer and many things, but he is a Strategic Messager in RL

OK - ten minutes of Google-FU

Did you watch any of these videos? They pretty much just reinforce my two points...

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you watch any of these videos? They pretty much just reinforce my two points...

😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Did you watch any of these videos? They pretty much just reinforce my two points...

Yes - "The term "sanctuary city" seems to be created by anti-illegal immigration folks."

That is why it is listed in the documents from the government of the City of San Francisco, the most right wing bitter clinging city in the Union. Clearly created by those opposed to anti-undocumented-aspiring-not-yet-(usually)-future-democratic-voters

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

That is why it is listed in the documents from the government of the City of San Francisco, the most right wing bitter clinging city in the Union. Clearly created by those opposed to anti-undocumented-aspiring-not-yet-(usually)-future-democratic-voters

I said created not used. Many seem to want to give the impression that in these cities you're immune from deportation which simply isn't true. Some cities are more forgiving than others but they all work with the Feds.

Simple question, why do so many cities employ some sort of sanctuary policy unless it's effective at fighting crime?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Simple question, why do so many cities employ some sort of sanctuary policy unless it's effective at fighting crime?

you are on a roll ......

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I said created not used. Many seem to want to give the impression that in these cities you're immune from deportation which simply isn't true. Some cities are more forgiving than others but they all work with the Feds.

Simple question, why do so many cities employ some sort of sanctuary policy unless it's effective at fighting crime?

Spence, have you ever been objective for 5 consecutive seconds?

You are correct when you say there's a disconnect between federal and local laws. And do you know, in our republic, which law trumps which, in those situations? It's pretty explicit, it's in the supremacy clause. Not a lot of ambiguity.

I have never once heard anyone say that sanctuary cities are set up to fight crime.

In this case, ICE told the authorities in San Francisco to notify them when they let the illegal alien go. ICE would have deported him, for the 7th time. San Francisco, being an enlightened, compassionate place (unlike the rest of the nation) specifically chose to ignore ICE's request, and that decision cost this girl, by all accounts a superb American, her life. And as enlightened as those city leaders are, they sure have been mum on this subject. Not a lot of courage there.

If you think it's good policy to let illegal aliens with multiple felonies, to escape the grip of ICE, you are a liberal. If you think these people should be subject to our duly constituted laws, you are not a liberal. The air on your side of the aisle, is getting pretty funky, Spence.

How the hell did we (and by 'we', I mean liberals) get to the point, where it's controversial to say that guy like this needs to get kicked out, and not let back in? This is not a complicated issue, this should be low-hanging fruit. But nope.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You are correct when you say there's a disconnect between federal and local laws. And do you know, in our republic, which law trumps which, in those situations? It's pretty explicit, it's in the supremacy clause. Not a lot of ambiguity.

Jim, the ICE detainer is a violation of the 4th Amendment unless there's a Federal arrest warrant.

I have never once heard anyone say that sanctuary cities are set up to fight crime.

I didn't say set up, I said why would communities do it if it wasn't.

This has been studied quite a bit and a lot of police seem to have a very positive perspective on sanctuary policies. I used that Google thing JohnR seems so fond of and found some interesting results:

http://www.policefoundation.org/cont...f-local-police

http://www.policylink.org/sites/defa...PORT_FINAL.PDF

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/spe...-united-states

In this case, ICE told the authorities in San Francisco to notify them when they let the illegal alien go. ICE would have deported him, for the 7th time. San Francisco, being an enlightened, compassionate place (unlike the rest of the nation) specifically chose to ignore ICE's request, and that decision cost this girl, by all accounts a superb American, her life. And as enlightened as those city leaders are, they sure have been mum on this subject. Not a lot of courage there.

When the local prosecutor failed to charge him for his outstanding drug charge the authorities had no legal justification to hold him.

It's a sad case for sure, but if anything is another reason for immigration reform.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, the ICE detainer is a violation of the 4th Amendment unless there's a Federal arrest warrant.


.

Do illegals get Constitutional protections? That's a sincere question. I would have thought not...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Do illegals get Constitutional protections? That's a sincere question. I would have thought not...

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I didn't say set up, I said why would communities do it if it wasn't.

.

Because one of the pillars of liberalism is that if one falls into a victim group (and currently, because Hispanics vote Democrat, they qualify) nothing they do is their fault. And for many liberals, defying the man, regardless of what the man is saying, is a badge of progressive honor. If you think that sounds stupid and crazy, I agree. But that's liberalism, at least on this issue. So what if a few superb Americans are sacrificed.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

When the local prosecutor failed to charge him for his outstanding drug charge the authorities had no legal justification to hold him.
.

Do you get any facts? He was deported after committing felonies here. As soon as he stepped foot back on American soil, he committed a crime, and ICE has the legal authority to detain him and ship his azz back.

Because the feds had a legal claim to him, they asked the local hippies officials to alert ICE if they let him go They weren't about to let this poor victim fall into the hands of the totalitarian folks at ICE, so they set him loose on that poor girl instead. Well done.

This is exactly why I say liberalism is a mental disorder. There is no rational reason to oppose the notion that illegals who commit felonies here, need to go. Build a one way, high speed train to Tierra Del Fuego.