A clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities

[toomuchtime_]

dude, it's fking easy. Here again:

what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

What is it you don't get? BTW, that's all it takes to get funding.

Does (do) the local police get to expect anything??? Such as ICE being there in 72 hours or so to pick up the illegal alien?

Further,
How long should the local police be on the hook for storing the arrested person. Also, in smaller cities, there are no federal courts, much less prisons. So where do you hold the arrested illegal alien whilst a hearing is being held? For example, if he commits robbery in Fort Hancock, TX then is found out to be an illegal alien…the DA in Fort Hancock is going to put him through a trial. Usually he would be bonded out awaiting trial. With the immigration enhancement…can’t let him out on bail so it’s 3 hots and a cot at the expense of whom?

Mac1958 …. you tell us….how long should someone be held here and at the expense of whom?

That was the argument the mayor of Miami made to justify not holding illegals for ICE. He said it would have cost the city $52,000 to have held them and he refused to do it unless the federal government paid the city back, but then he was reminded that Miami got $550,000,000 from the federal government that it might lose if he continued to refuse and he decided $52,000 wasn't so much money after all.

You think Fort Hancock gets a lot of federal funds? In Miami, the argument isn’t so cut and dried. I would imagine there are federal courts, detention centers, etc… You don’t have that in every town. I would expect ICE to take custody because they can. I wouldn’t expect ICE to do so in Fort Hancock.

It's really very simple: if they want federal funds they will find a way to cooperate with ICE. If the town is so small it doesn't have a prison, it can't have all that many illegals, so it's not a big problem.

Sounds like that is what the coyotes would be banking on...but that is just simple logic so don't let it trouble you.

With this post you show proof you have no idea what "logic" is.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

dude, it's fking easy. Here again:

what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

What is it you don't get? BTW, that's all it takes to get funding.

Does (do) the local police get to expect anything??? Such as ICE being there in 72 hours or so to pick up the illegal alien?

Further,
How long should the local police be on the hook for storing the arrested person. Also, in smaller cities, there are no federal courts, much less prisons. So where do you hold the arrested illegal alien whilst a hearing is being held? For example, if he commits robbery in Fort Hancock, TX then is found out to be an illegal alien…the DA in Fort Hancock is going to put him through a trial. Usually he would be bonded out awaiting trial. With the immigration enhancement…can’t let him out on bail so it’s 3 hots and a cot at the expense of whom?

Mac1958 …. you tell us….how long should someone be held here and at the expense of whom?

They should be held for the required time by the appropriate jurisdiction.

Who is the appropriate jurisdiction in this case? Is he a federal prisoner or a State inmate?

I don't know either. That's why I said "the appropriate jurisdiction".
.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

Unintended consequences?

Public mistrust. Correct. I don't trust the government to forcefully take my hard earned wages to give them to someone who violated Federal law to feed, clothe educate and house those and their families while they make these demands under the color of their own Country's flag, while they assault our citizens and riot in our cities.

Reporting crime and not cooperating with Police. Correct. They are not reporting the crimes committed amongst their own and cooperating with Police.

Families broken up. Correct. You didn't think of this when the parents of these children sent their children North, to take up residence in the hated United States, with the intent of getting a free ride for the rest of their family once their children made it here, so that we could feed, clothe , house and educate them with no participation from them, other than arriving here.

Increased welfare. Correct. Why are the citizens of this country spending billions on these invaders in welfare costs, Medical costs. Education, etc.

Yes. Correct. Unintended consequences.

If their lives are so bad in their own country then they need to correct the problem. Instead they come here and expect... No... DEMAND we change to suit their desires.

Your crying towel needs wringing.

Go home and fix your own house. Not come here and destroy ours.

Yes. You are correct. Unintended consequences.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

dude, it's fking easy. Here again:

what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

What is it you don't get? BTW, that's all it takes to get funding.

You don't think . That guy has a (legal) family . He's never done nothing to nobody . You rip him away from mom and kids to have him what ? Sit in a jail for years before a hearing? What does that cost society ?!

Rip him away from his children.

His child may be legal, but he is not.

Go home. Jose Frederico Hernandez Jesus Jiminez can return to claim his citizenship at 18.

 

[Iceweasel]

The worse unintended consequence is that some bastard that has no legal right to be here kills you, family or friend. One of these smug politician enablers should have it happen to them, they won't wake up any other way.

 

[Mac1958]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

Unintended consequences?

Public mistrust. Correct. I don't trust the government to forcefully take my hard earned wages to give them to someone who violated Federal law to feed, clothe and, educate and house those and their families while they make these demands under the color of their own Country's flag, while they assault our citizens and riot input cities.

Reporting crime and not cooperating with Police. Correct. They are not reporting the crimes committed amongst their own and cooperating with Police.

Families broken up. Correct. You didn't think of this when the parents of these children sent their children North, to take up residence in the hated United States, with the intent of getting a free ride for the rest of their family once their children made it here, so that we could feed, clothe , house and educate them with no participation from them, other than arriving here.

Increased welfare. Correct. Why are the citizens of this country spending billions on these invaders in welfare costs, Medical costs. Education, etc.

Yes. Correct. Unintended consequences.

If their lives are so bad in their own country then they need to correct the problem. Instead they come here and expect... No... DEMAND we change to suit their desires.

Your crying towel needs wringing.

Go homeland fix your own house. Not come here and destroy ours.

Yes. You are correct. Unintended consequences.

The one issue I never see discussed (outside of when I'm screaming about it) is the fact that Mexican "leaders" are so proud to help their people escape their miserable, corrupt country. The fact that people are trying to escape and come here comes before all the people here who are fine with it.

Also, it appears that the primary reason people who support sanctuary cities provide is as follows:

We should have sanctuary cities because it's too expensive to hold and prosecute the people we're attracting by being sanctuary cities.

I have no idea how to respond to that.
.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

emotion

No, it's finances. Cities have a large immigrant population. Big bunches of people leave, the economy flounders (even more than it already is). It's always money, TN.

Plus there are many organizations that make a lot of money off illegals. Money given them by a corrupt federal government. It is all a big scam.

RELIGIOUS 'CHARITIES' PROFIT FROM OPEN BORDERS
Watchdogs ask: 'Is it charity if government pays?'

Read more at Religious ‘charities’ profit from open borders
But one of the largest recipients of government funds to resettle immigrant children is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The USCCB helps resettle not only unaccompanied alien children, or UACs, who enter the country illegally but also refugees fleeing persecution overseas who enter through legal channels.

The USCCB is one of nine agencies that receive hundreds of millions in tax dollars to resettle refugees and asylum seekers in the U.S. under contract with the federal government. Six of the nine contractors are religious groups, WND has learned, including the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, Episcopal Migration Ministries, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Church World Service and World Relief Corp., which includes a plethora of evangelical groups.

The Catholic Bishops alone received $65.9 million in federal grants to care for unaccompanied alien children and refugees, according to its 2012 annual report.


Read more at Religious ‘charities’ profit from open borders

We can't have separation of Church and State.

Except...

 

[Conservative65]

emotion

No, it's finances. Cities have a large immigrant population. Big bunches of people leave, the economy flounders (even more than it already is). It's always money, TN.

There's your first problem. You call them immigrants. They're criminals. You do know that breaking the law makes you one?

It will be about finances. When federal money to those refusing to adhere to federal law have that federal money they get taken away, see how quickly protecting those criminals causes the economy to flounder.

 

[EverCurious]

Why the hell would an illegal alien have the protections and rights (due process) in the Constitution when they have violated it by the very act of not using proper channels to come into the country?

I've never understood this rediculious position. I mean if we're going to play that game then do we have the right to start arresting people in other countries for violating our Constitution?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

To come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of Sanctuary Cities', one would have to come up with a 'clear, direct & comprehensive defense of' allowing criminals to break into your own home and acquiesce to their demand that they be allowed to stay - even if they break your rules / the law - and that you must pick up the tab for doing so. No one in their right mind would do so. At the very least an argument would be made for screening and controlling who came into 'your' home.

I give you the main reasons . You choose to ignore them .

I would prefer the word... Reject!

 

[Yousaidwhat]

no what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which does not happen with the wave of a wand. So the criminal illegal is ... where ... for the year or so he awaits a jury trial? I worked with a guy this was happening to--it was over a year to a deportation hearing. Maybe cost is a factor?

yeah, I don't think so. why do you think they can stay here?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which takes a long time. There is a possible argument that the feds should pick up the costs. So I don't get your question.

I think they need to show an ID. If no ID at time of arrest, then there would be a delay while the local police found out who the individual was. If the name is on an illegal list, then ICE is called. There is not court, there is pick up.
BTW, if they have an ID and that ID tags the individual as illegal, call ICE. There is no waiting on a court ruling.

See illegal alien is ...illegal and is a crime. Deporting is the next stop.

We have a constitution you know . Due process.

You can just grab an illegal and catapult him into the Atlantic Ocean .

You are better off taking dopey wall money and putting it into more immigration court .

I'd prefer to shoot them upon entry.

Edit. Not really. But since you seem to think we will catapult them into the ocean.

 

[Meathead]

Cheap tacos

 

[Yousaidwhat]

yeah, I don't think so. why do you think they can stay here?

I'm pretty sure they have to be PROVEN an illegal, in court, which takes a long time. There is a possible argument that the feds should pick up the costs. So I don't get your question.

I think they need to show an ID. If no ID at time of arrest, then there would be a delay while the local police found out who the individual was. If the name is on an illegal list, then ICE is called. There is not court, there is pick up.
BTW, if they have an ID and that ID tags the individual as illegal, call ICE. There is no waiting on a court ruling.

See illegal alien is ...illegal and is a crime. Deporting is the next stop.

We have a constitution you know . Due process.

You can just grab an illegal and catapult him into the Atlantic Ocean .

You are better off taking dopey wall money and putting it into more immigration court .

well dude, they deport them back to their homeland. Not the ocean, unless you feel that's where they originate from?

They have due process. They have to be JUDGED illegal by a COURT OF LAW. You might wish it to be so, but you can't just put someone on a bus and send him to Colombia the next day because he hasn't got proof of citizenship in his pocket.

Then he can sit in a holding cell eating Bologna sandwiches until he can provide identification.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Could someone provide one?

Thanks.
.

Willful ignorance. There have been several made by mayors from many of our most important cities. New York, San Francisco, LA. Go ahead. Pick one. This is not an issue that any rational person sees as confusing.

But..look at all the love you got for this enlightening thread. You are so awesome.

 

[Mac1958]

Willful ignorance. There have been several made by mayors from many of our most important cities. New York, San Francisco, LA. Go ahead. Pick one. This is not an issue that any rational person sees as confusing.But..look at all the love you got for this enlightening thread. You are so awesome.

Very constructive and informative as always, thanks.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I've read through most of this thread, and I'm surprised that no one has gotten it yet.

There's one major reason for sanctuary cities that hasn't been mentioned yet (or I missed it) - and its the primary logistical reason why the laws have been adopted by various cities.

Sanctuary cities exist so illegal immigrants won't be afraid of talking to cops.

That's it.

I did mention that amount other things . Say there's a domestic incident . No way mom calls the cops if that means dad is locked up and shipped away .

So you are implying that Mrs. Jose Frederico Hernandez Jesus Jiminez will continues to stay with Mr. Jose Frederico Hernandez Jesus Jiminez while he commits domestic volence against her because they are illegal and won't contact the Police because the one who is beating her will be locked up and shipped way?

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I've read through most of this thread, and I'm surprised that no one has gotten it yet.

There's one major reason for sanctuary cities that hasn't been mentioned yet (or I missed it) - and its the primary logistical reason why the laws have been adopted by various cities.

Sanctuary cities exist so illegal immigrants won't be afraid of talking to cops.

That's it.

Right, watch the National Geographic documentary on Mexico taking over Meth trafficking in the US and then tell us how well sanctuary city policies are working, hint they aren't.

If illegals are deported, there's no need for sanctuary cities.

What's the correlation ?!

Can't answer the question can you .

You idiots think cities are not turning over criminals ? It's a great way to get rid of the real bad guys . They just ain't turning over people for citations and piddly shit.

Have you relayed that message to Kate Steinly?

 

[candycorn]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

dude, it's fking easy. Here again:

what we expect is for someone here illegally and picked up during a crime by local police, are held in a jail cell, ICE contacted, ICE picks up and leaves, we call it a day and the criminal illegal is deported back to his/ her country. See how easy that is?

What is it you don't get? BTW, that's all it takes to get funding.

Does (do) the local police get to expect anything??? Such as ICE being there in 72 hours or so to pick up the illegal alien?

Further,
How long should the local police be on the hook for storing the arrested person. Also, in smaller cities, there are no federal courts, much less prisons. So where do you hold the arrested illegal alien whilst a hearing is being held? For example, if he commits robbery in Fort Hancock, TX then is found out to be an illegal alien…the DA in Fort Hancock is going to put him through a trial. Usually he would be bonded out awaiting trial. With the immigration enhancement…can’t let him out on bail so it’s 3 hots and a cot at the expense of whom?

Mac1958 …. you tell us….how long should someone be held here and at the expense of whom?

They should be held for the required time by the appropriate jurisdiction.

Who is the appropriate jurisdiction in this case? Is he a federal prisoner or a State inmate?

I don't know either. That's why I said "the appropriate jurisdiction".
.

Well, theorize if you will.

I'm all for expelling any one who is not here legally. The law is the law.

But I can certainly understand why cities balk at housing inmates. Cities budget X amount of dollars for their jails. I've heard of some rural areas that do not have 24 hour jailers unless they have prisoners. So if they pull over a guy for making an illegal U-turn or expired plates and find out he is an illegal alien just passing through, that means they have to put the guy in their lock up, pay a jailer to sit there and guard the inmate. If they had assurances that ICE would be there in 72 hours to collect the inmate they would probably be more willing to "throw the book" at the guy.

I would think that it could be done as follows:

If the "crime" is a misdemeanor that causes the stoppage, the feds could commute that sentence and simply charge the guy with illegal entry or whatever the correct verbiage is and remove the prisoner (and the costs) from the local jurisdiction. For felonies that require a trial and are inherently more litigious, the feds should cut checks monthly to the local authorities for housing the inmate(s).

 

[Iceweasel]

They only have to hold them until ICE shows up. They spend more on that than programs enabling the illegals. No sale.

 

[gipper]

Here's the deal you meatheads . These cities DO turn over immigrants accused of felonies and dangerous crimes .

But they ain't gonna hold in their jails , at their expense , some guy caught driving without insurance .

You never think of the unintended consequences of your roundup . Public mistrust , people NOT reporting crime, people not cooperating with the police , families being broken up , increased welfare to suppprt broken families .

Unintended consequences?

Public mistrust. Correct. I don't trust the government to forcefully take my hard earned wages to give them to someone who violated Federal law to feed, clothe and, educate and house those and their families while they make these demands under the color of their own Country's flag, while they assault our citizens and riot input cities.

Reporting crime and not cooperating with Police. Correct. They are not reporting the crimes committed amongst their own and cooperating with Police.

Families broken up. Correct. You didn't think of this when the parents of these children sent their children North, to take up residence in the hated United States, with the intent of getting a free ride for the rest of their family once their children made it here, so that we could feed, clothe , house and educate them with no participation from them, other than arriving here.

Increased welfare. Correct. Why are the citizens of this country spending billions on these invaders in welfare costs, Medical costs. Education, etc.

Yes. Correct. Unintended consequences.

If their lives are so bad in their own country then they need to correct the problem. Instead they come here and expect... No... DEMAND we change to suit their desires.

Your crying towel needs wringing.

Go homeland fix your own house. Not come here and destroy ours.

Yes. You are correct. Unintended consequences.

The one issue I never see discussed (outside of when I'm screaming about it) is the fact that Mexican "leaders" are so proud to help their people escape their miserable, corrupt country. The fact that people are trying to escape and come here comes before all the people here who are fine with it.

Also, it appears that the primary reason people who support sanctuary cities provide is as follows:

We should have sanctuary cities because it's too expensive to hold and prosecute the people we're attracting by being sanctuary cities.

I have no idea how to respond to that.
.

No one with any intelligence can respond to a policy that is utter nonsense. The radical left is most illogical, so trying to debate them is a terrible waste of time.