Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 1:24 pm

These cities need not follow the law but if they want federal funding, then they need to do as asked. I was reading how some supporters are complaining the cities are not supposed to be doing the job of immigration yet all they are being told to do is detain these illegals so the feds CAN do their job.

They feel they can decide what laws they want to follow
But they want their money, doesn't make sense to rational people but then again, being a liberal mayor never really was a rational person either was it?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Mar 2017, 7:42 pm

Brad, I think your example of states being denied transportation funds if they did not have 55 mph speed limit is inapposite because in that case the denial of transportation funds had a close linkage to the local policy they wanted adopted. But you cannot just decide to deny federal funds in unrelated areas as the Trump Administration is doing. I think they are going to have trouble there. They need be able to establish a close link between the funds they are denying and immigration.

And it's a bad policy, anyway. The police do not want to be enforcing immigration laws and asking about immigration status. And it takes away local resources to hold illegal aliens for minor crimes or not proving status. And there are definite constitutional limits on the federal government being able to use local police as adjuncts of federal immigration enforcement.

They need to focus on having agreements with local police to keep violent illegals until ICE can pick them up. Everyone wants that.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 30 Mar 2017, 8:45 pm

I understand you think it is a bad law. I could have accurately guessed.

A law enforcement official should only check ID, of ANYONE they detain, and run the info into an immigration check computer. Regardless of nation of origin, a person w/o proper ID should be given to ICE officials for THEIR determination of immigration status.

Should law enforcement officials check other states' databases? I think they should. I would you would hope for that as well. If not, then someone can rape in one state and run across the border. That is just bad on so many levels. If other states, why not federal law? Should a Federal drug charge be known to the police? YES on all.

I am not asking the police to enforce immigration, just check and detain so ICE can resolve the issue.

Federal law for federal funds is the connection. If the state chooses a course to "sanctuary" then they make the choice of receiving funds.

Ahhh, the joy of being "Pro-Choice"
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 31 Mar 2017, 12:33 pm

Let me see if I understand this liberal perspective correctly...

Cities can decide what laws they will or will not choose to follow.
Should they decide to not follow certain laws, they should not be penalized for that decision.
Let the cities do as they please and the feds keep supporting anything the city wishes.

So if you have a child who gets an allowance, you should continue giving that allowance even when they break the rules? Curfew is broken...give them their money. Doesn't do their homework ...give them their money. Doesn't mow the lawn or do the dishes, take out the garbage ...give them their money.

How about I not go to work but demand I still get paid?
Should my employer have to pay me when I break the rules?

This is EXACTLY what our liberal friends seem to be saying here isn't it?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 31 Mar 2017, 12:39 pm

New York State many years ago faced a dilemma. The Thruway was a toll road, they had "X" number of years where they would be able to charge tolls AND get federal highway money. Well that time eventually ended and they had to decide whether to do away with the tolls and use federal money or forget the federal money and continue with tolls. They decided to stick with the toll road. They had a choice and they decided to forgo federal money.

It's the same here, cities can decide to grant sanctuary status but they must accept the consequences of their actions. Yet liberals (as always) want it all their way. No consequences for liberal actions (yet any conservative action must of course be punished harshly)
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Mar 2017, 12:55 pm

Wow. Tom, that was an impressively...incorrect analysis of what is going on here. If it were a matter of cities violating federal law then the federal government would just go to court and force them to. However, compelling local police agencies to carry out federal immigration work violates the Tenth Amendment. The withholding of federal grant money if the states do not do what the federal government wants with regard to immigration is unconstitutional because such restrictions have to be written in the statutes authorizing the grants. But congrats on having a narrative that has no relationship to the legal issues at stake.

Here is a good analysis.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ry-cities/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Mar 2017, 1:46 pm

freeman3 wrote:Wow. Tom, that was an impressively...incorrect analysis of what is going on here. If it were a matter of cities violating federal law then the federal government would just go to court and force them to. However, compelling local police agencies to carry out federal immigration work violates the Tenth Amendment. The withholding of federal grant money if the states do not do what the federal government wants with regard to immigration is unconstitutional because such restrictions have to be written in the statutes authorizing the grants. But congrats on having a narrative that has no relationship to the legal issues at stake.

Here is a good analysis.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ry-cities/


I think it's a laugh-riot that NOW liberals are concerned about the 10th Amendment. They didn't give a fig about it during the Obama years.

You are correct that local law enforcement doesn't want to enforce immigration law. However, I don't believe that is what is at stake here. I don't believe Trump/Sessions desire LAPD rolling out and grabbing illegal immigrants off the street because of their immigration status.

However, once they have been convicted OR once they are incarcerated AND identified as gang members, they should be deported as soon as they are set for release. That's common sense--and in keeping with the law. Any municipality or State that doesn't want to comply with that should lose massive Federal money. If that requires changing statutory language, then Congress should get on that ASAP.

Why liberals continue to conflate "illegal" with "legal" immigration, well, I guess we know why: if they were honest in defending "sanctuary" policies, they'd have to say something like, "It's more important to us to put a thumb in Trump's eye than it is to protect you, your family, and your property from predatory people."

Viva la raza!
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Mar 2017, 3:22 pm

Well, sanctuary cities are not letting violent illegals back on the streets. No way--not as policy. In any case, if a sanctuary city lets an illegal alien back out then who primarily bears the risk of that release? That City! And those kinds of issues can be mostly determined locally.Why should someone in Idaho really be concerned if Seattle releases an illegal who has a DUI instead of turning him over to ICE? The local cities can make those kind of deteminations. Now, if it's a felony or perhaps certain violent misdemeanors or if the person belongs to a violent gang and has committed a crime then, yes, I would favor a somewhat uniform policies. Otherwise, I think we should give cities wide discretion as to how much they want to help the Feds here.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 01 Apr 2017, 7:59 am

freeman3 wrote:Well, sanctuary cities are not letting violent illegals back on the streets. No way--not as policy. In any case, if a sanctuary city lets an illegal alien back out then who primarily bears the risk of that release? That City!


Actually, yes they are. How many examples do you want?Two? Five? Ten?

And those kinds of issues can be mostly determined locally.Why should someone in Idaho really be concerned if Seattle releases an illegal who has a DUI instead of turning him over to ICE? The local cities can make those kind of deteminations.


Sure, because there is no way someone from WA will ever travel to ID, or vice-versa. After all, State boundaries are like, erm, walls, right?

Now, if it's a felony or perhaps certain violent misdemeanors or if the person belongs to a violent gang and has committed a crime then, yes, I would favor a somewhat uniform policies. Otherwise, I think we should give cities wide discretion as to how much they want to help the Feds here.


It's not "helping" the Feds. It takes virtually no effort to put a hold on an inmate and notify the Feds. What it is: protecting the legal residents of the USA.

Btw, I hope you're not implying that DUI is not a dangerous crime.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 03 Apr 2017, 12:09 pm

It's interesting to me that among some there is a willingness to penalize corporations for hiring illegals, but not cities for protecting them, and for others there is a willingness to punish cities, but not corporations. Just saying ...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Apr 2017, 2:05 pm

The consistency here is that one side is focused on making sure illegals are treated fairly (hence corporations should be punished if they hire illegals rather than focus on border patrol/deportation and sanctuary cities are not punished because they help illegals) and the other side is focused on punishing illegals (so does not want sanctuary cities to help illegals and would rather focus on deporting illegals then penalize corporations).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 03 Apr 2017, 2:25 pm

freeman3 wrote:The consistency here is that one side is focused on making sure illegals are treated fairly (hence corporations should be punished if they hire illegals rather than focus on border patrol/deportation and sanctuary cities are not punished because they help illegals) and the other side is focused on punishing illegals (so does not want sanctuary cities to help illegals and would rather focus on deporting illegals then penalize corporations).


I guess. Trying to prevent an illegal from gainful employment (which I agree with) may be fair, but is very tough on them and their families. It also pushes them to work under the radar with fewer protections.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Apr 2017, 2:41 pm

I am fine with both, as written above...

I want the businesses worried that if they hire an illegal (not documented worker, but an illegal alien), then there will be egregious penalties. This with curb the hiring of such people, and take away the impetus toward illegal entry.

I want the various strata of government worried that if they provide assistance to an illegal, then there will be egregious funding penalties. This will curb the assistance of such people, and take away the impetus toward illegal entry.

That seems pretty balanced on both sides. As I recall RickyP and Freeman both did not want that. Perhaps their one-sidedness was showing as RJ posted above.

Cross-posted...

The person or their family is not forced to enter the US. If they choose to work in the shadows, there are dangers and costs. Perhaps they should just work through the system to get documented before entering.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Apr 2017, 7:52 pm

The question I have is where is the proof that illegal immigration at current levels has a net negative affect on our economy and country as a whole?If you don't KNOW the answer to that question then why be so concerned about it or feel the need to build a wall or more intensively deport people?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 03 Apr 2017, 9:20 pm

I don't, and neither do you.

I do know that every person who is not documented and a resident is illegal, and should not be allowed in the US because of criminality.

Are you of the same mind as RickyP in the way that he wants to only punish an employer (As RJ mentioned)?