JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,543
- 280
If there is something I don’t understand it is your idiocy. You are are correct in observing that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state issue but you undermine that premise by saying shit like this:Yo've certainly taken the football and ran with it. But you and your RW buddies are running in the wrong direction.
The most difficult obstruction to bypass for your ship of fools is the Supreme Court decision: Arizona vs USA. Please take the time to read it.
Arizona was about a state wanting to take the federal law of immigration into their own hands, much like sanctuary cities and those states which harbor illegals and stand in the way of enforcement of FEDERAL law.
If you read Arizona vs USA, you didn't comprehend it very well. The state of Arizona was taking YOUR SIDE. The state legislature felt the feds weren't doing enough to halt the tide of illegal immigrants to their state so they took the initiative. The Supreme Court shot that initiative down. And here is why:
The Sanctuary Movement is getting a foul rap here. Don't confuse the Sanctuary Movement with so-called sanctuary cities. The SM is still the only viable hope for those who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time, state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is sufficient to suspect that person is an illegal. However, having no I.D. is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine if a person is illegal, which, in effect, burns up local and state resources including room and board expenses.
Something else you might not know: There are time limits on how long a person an be detained without a warrant. If I remember correctly it is something like 24 hrs. Holding an undocumented worker past that time could result in a lawsuit if he or she turns out to be a refugee or have legal status. If the undocumented worker has not committed a crime, the warrant would have to come from the feds within that 24 hrs time frame. But the kicker is that mere suspicion followed by detention has been undermined by Arizona vs USA.
We are still talking about a STATE taking on a position of enforcement it was not given nor do they have the resources available to do. This is why the Federal government has ICE agents tasked with doing that job under the authority of those in Washington DC, not the state. I didn't misinterpret the issue at all, you simply don't know what the Federal policy of our immigration laws are.
This is why the Federal government has ICE agents tasked with doing that job under the authority of those in Washington DC, not the state.
If we agree on who has the responsibility to enforce immigration laws, what is your argument? You have been whining about sanctuary cites harboring illegal aliens for a while now. Yet, you want the cops of state and local municipalities to actively get involved in detaining people who fit the profile, determine if they are undocumented, detain them without a warrant until ICE arrives… Am I correct? Is that the way you see it?
My argument has always been about stricter Federal enforcement of our immigration laws, perhaps you can be so kind as to point out where I EVER said that it's the job of cops and local enforcement over ICE agents. Time and again I said it's a FEDERAL and not a STATE issue, what part of that did you not understand?
Sanctuary cities and not reporting illegal immigrants is what encourages illegals to come into this country.
THEN, you said this"
If we want to show we are serious about the illegal immigration problem, we need a stronger border presence and deterrence paid for by Federal Funding cuts of those states that support Sanctuary Cities. If they want to see their funding restored then they need to respect and uphold federal laws.
Now , It appears that you are denying you said sanctuary cities are harboring illegal aliens by failing to respect and uphold federal immigration laws.
And just how does the state or city government identify who is or is not an illegal alien without risking violations of the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution? And I wonder how you want states or sanctuary cities uphold federal law when they don’t have the authority to do so?
The Sanctuary MOVEMENT vs Sanctuary Cities:
The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing civil war and persecution in their homelands. Sanctuary doesn't apply to Mexicans because there is no civil war going on there.
Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities.
A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an illegal alien in the country in which they are currently living. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce national immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.[1]
If liberal states want to keep their funding, they can choose to put an end to sanctuary cities.
What about the red states that have them, you stupid shit? I have had just about enough of you.
You can’’tg even comprehend what is right in front of you. If you don’t trust the map at least be resourceful enough to check somewhere else and be man enough to admit you're wrong..
I took my precious time to post excerpts from Arizona vs USA pertinent towhee some sanctuary cities don’t ”UPHOLD” federal immigration laws: read and heed:
the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens
the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work
the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance.
This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
es I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions.
But you don't mention the red states, including Texas with sanctuary cities you disingenuous bahs-turd.
To reiterate my point the Federal Government needs to have penalties in place that will put an end to those states which allow cities that harbor illegals from the knowledge of ICE agents to flourish
That statement is just plain stupid. Unless you can prove otherwise the definition of sanctuary cities I posted is king. Words like “harbor” are inappropriate. The cops in sanctuary cities have a don't ask don’t tell approach. That isn’t harboring because they don’t know who the illegal aliens are until they commit a crime. Then they do report them.
If anything amnesty, or a quick pathway to citizenship, only encourages future illegals and undermines our immigration laws by providing a reason not to respect them.
A quick path to US citizenship isn’t possible. Show me where that has ever occurred in the last 10 years except with documented non citizens who join the area forces.
States that approve of sanctuary cities, make efforts to conceal an illegal's identity from ICE, or otherwise place themselves in a position that hinders Federal immigration enforcement, will have their Federal Funding cut until an internal investigation reveals such harboring of illegals no longer exists.
Can you prove states are concerning an illegals identity from ICE for are hindering federal immigration enforcement? You can’t so STFU!