Ban Sanctuary Cities? They're Already Banned

[protectionist]

Fox News reports that presidential candidate Ben Carson is calling for sanctuary cities to be banned. Let's get something clear. Sanctuary cities are ALREADY BANNED. They are ILLEGAL. They are in violation of the 1996 immigration law >>

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Division C of Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat.3009-546, enacted September 30, 1996 vastly changed the immigration laws of the United States.
This act states that immigrants unlawfully present in the United States for 180 days but less than 365 days must remain outside the United States for three years unless they obtain a pardon. If they are in the United States for 365 days or more, they must stay outside the United States for ten years unless they obtain a waiver. If they return to the United States without the pardon, they may not apply for a waiver for a period of ten years.

In complete defiance of this law, the nutcases on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, are nonchalantly going about their trivial business tasks, while completely ignoring the death of Kate Steinle. They are brushing it off as if it never happened. I looked at their agenda for their upcoming meeting of July 14. There are 58 items + 4 resolutions to be discussed and voted on. They cover everything from declaring a week to be :"Restaurant Week" to naming a day in the honor of some guy named Joseph Bernstein, to language interpreter service for immigrants at their meetings, to something about bicycles, etc etc. BUT NOT ONE WORD ABOUT KATE STEINLE, OR SANCTUARY CITY STATUS.

But for their malfeasance, Kate Steinle would be alive today said former prosecutor Kim Gilfoyle on the Five, on Fox News.

I was so mad I went to the their website, got their phone number (415)554-5184. Called them up and politely, bitched them out. Of course I couldn't speak to all the 11 members of the board, and I didn't even speak to one of them (I spoke to an office assistant), but at least I penetrated their psuedo-righteous veneer. I left my phone number so that one of the Supervisors could call me. If he doesn't, no big deal. If he does he'll get more of the same of what I dished out today to his aide, which was telling him he needs to abolish his sanctuary city status, and he could be jailed right now, for not doing that.

I encourage every member of this forum to pick of the phone and do the same thing. I figured if Kate Stenile could pay for this horrific situation with her life, and her last horrible moments dying in a siren-screeching ambulance, I could at least pick up the phone, and bitch somebody's ass out. These guys are literally getting away with murder, that they are partially responsible for, and they think NOTHING of it. They need to be made to think a WHOLE LOT OF IT. I was aghast when I saw the news report of the O'Reilly Factor show where Jesse Watters went to their chamber room and scolded them and showed them a picture of Kate Steinle. They sat there in their seats and ignored him and the picture. It appeared like none of them were listening to him or even looking at him, and at least three of them had a pen in hand and were continually writing something while Jesse was talking. They should have not have been ALLOWED to have pen in their hand, while a member of the US public was talking to them.

When Watters interviewed Christine Falvey in the office of the Mayor, she said the Mayor, was "taking this very seriously", and was "working on a number of issues". When Watters challenged her to SAY WHAT was he doing to fix this problem, she wouldn't answer. So far as I can see, as of the time of this writing, what I see the city doing can be described in one word >> NOTHING

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illega...ty_Act_of_1996

https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=413874&GUID=193C5D5B-2348-4A4B-8525-0FCA0A9793C2

 

[waltky]

If it's so great, why won't they put it to a vote?...

San Fran Official Reaffirms Sanctuary Policies
Oct 26, 2015 -- In an emotional hearing here, Supervisor Malia Cohen took an unapologetic stand on behalf of her city's sanctuary policies, giving the brush-off to conservative Republicans and commentators nationwide who placed San Francisco in their crosshairs in the months since an undocumented immigrant was charged in the shooting death of a woman.

"We cannot allow one event to dictate 25 years ... of our city's policies toward undocumented immigrants," Supervisor Malia Cohen said Tuesday to wild applause from a roomful of immigrants, two of them undocumented women who had earlier recounted to a board committee their years of suffering as victims of domestic violence, afraid to turn to police for fear of deportation. "More importantly," Cohen continued, we "cannot allow hateful conservative news stations to dictate how we respond to incidents in our city. I'm not afraid of Fox News, and they don't influence how I make my policy decisions."

Supervisor Malia Cohen took an unapologetic stand on behalf of her city's sanctuary policies which have drawn harsh criticism.​

Soon after, all 11 supervisors voted to pass a resolution affirming that San Francisco, which first declared itself a "City of Refuge" in 1989, shall remain so. San Francisco's sanctuary policies have drawn harsh criticism since Kate Steinle, 32, was shot and killed on a tourist-friendly waterfront walkway here last summer. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, now charged with her murder, is a five-time deportee who had been brought here in March from a federal prison in Southern California on a 2-decade-old marijuana-related bench warrant. But prosecutors declined to charge him, and the Sheriff's Department released him without honoring a request from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement that he be detained beyond his release date so he could be picked up and placed yet again in deportation proceedings.

The supervisors' resolution rejected cooperation with ICE's new Priority Enforcement Program, which largely moves away from the so-called detainer requests and instead asks local authorities to simply notify ICE before a release occurs. Supervisors allowed an exception to the rule if an inmate has been convicted of a violent felony in the last seven years and is being held to answer by a magistrate on a comparable charge. San Francisco's vote came just hours after the failure of a bill in Washington by U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) to cut federal funding to municipalities that don't cooperate fully with immigration authorities. The legislation included a provision, known as Kate's Law, that would have increased criminal sentences for immigrants who repeatedly enter the U.S. illegally.

MORE[/quote]​

 

[waltky]

Could be a states rights issue that ends up landing in the Supreme Court...

Texas governor threatens funding cut over sanctuary cities
January 22, 2017 — A Central Texas sheriff's announcement her agency will be scaling back its cooperation with federal immigration agents has prompted Gov. Greg Abbott to say his office will be cutting funding for the county.

Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez announced last week she is scaling back the amount of aid her department provides federal immigration agents in detaining suspects who might be in the country illegally, the Austin American-Statesman reported. (Abbott: Governor’s office to cut funding for Travis County after... ). Effective Feb. 1, sheriff's officials will honor so-called immigration holds or "detainers" placed by federal authorities only when a suspect is booked into the Travis County Jail on charges of capital murder, aggravated sexual assault and "continuous smuggling of persons."

Otherwise, federal agents must have a court order or arrest warrant signed by a judge for the jail to continue housing a person whose immigration status is in question. Hernandez's announcement came as Texas Republicans are gearing up for a new fight to ban so-called sanctuary cities in the current legislative session. In response to Hernandez, Abbott tweeted his office "will cut funding for Travis County adopting sanctuary policies." "Stiffer penalties coming," Abbott's tweet said.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, front, and Texas Speaker of the House Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, take part in the opening of the 85th Texas Legislative session at the Texas State Capitol, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2017, in Austin, Texas.​

Abbott has pushed the issue to the front of his unofficial agenda for 2017, pledging in interviews and on social media to sign into law a "ban" on cities and local governments that are seen as protecting people in the U.S. illegally, with sanctions such as cutting state funding. Civil rights groups say the threat from the governor could lead to racial profiling.

Travis County could lose up to $1.8 million in grants because the governor's office requires compliance in order to receive grants. The Travis County sheriff's office has a $169 million budget, according to the county's budget website. The $1.8 million would represent 1 percent of that budget. "The public must be confident that local law enforcement is focused on local public safety, not on federal immigration enforcement," Hernandez said in a video announcement.

Texas governor threatens funding cut over sanctuary cities