Conservatives, help me out.

[Geaux4it]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

One is a Second Amendment issue, the other is a privilege

-Geaux

 

[BluesLegend]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

 

[OKTexas]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

/----/ Police always do a background check even if they pull you over for a speeding tick to see if there are any outstanding warrants. Breaking the immigration laws are no different.

Ah, a batter steps to the plate. Swing and a miss.

The Supreme Court did not agree with you. The Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to require the local police to enforce Federal Law. The idea is simple.

Let's say you and I are both managers for the same company. Let's say the company makes widgets. You are in charge of security. I am in charge of manufacturing the widgets. I come to you and say I want your security people to help out in production. You tell me no, your people are responsible for security, not production. I would be wrong in expecting you to have your people do my job for me.

Federal Law is enforced by Federal Agents. Local laws are enforced by local cops. It's that simple. ICE is free to run around and arrest all the illegals they want. The local cops won't interfere, but aren't going to lift a finger to help. The same way that local cops quit enforcing State Marijuana laws when some states legalized. The DEA can still arrest and prosecute people, but the locals aren't going to help.

Both ICE and the DEA are used to having the locals do most of the work for them. Find the pot smokers, arresting them, and if it is a big enough bust, the Feds step in and take over.

I have no heartburn with the idea of letting the Feds do their own thing, I do object to local cops enforcing Federal law.

The background check you say is happening when the cops conduct a traffic stop is a check for wants and warrants. It isn't done in every interaction, and it isn't done for everyone in the car normally. If a cop pulls over a bus with a Church Rock Band, they aren't going to run wants and warrants for everyone. If the bus is involved in an accident, Especially a minor one, they may not run wants and warrants on anyone.

How is asking law enforcement to give ICE a heads up when a known criminal alien is about to be released, requiring them to enforce federal law?


.

 

[2aguy]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

They aren't enforcing federal immigration law, they are merely holding people who broke federal law until the feds can get there and take them into custody....

 

[whitehall]

You can't amend the Constitution every time the federal government fails to do it's job or overrides it's authority. You have to elect the right people to do the job.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.

As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

Ok then, can states that aren't sanctuary check a persons citizenship before allowing them to cross their border? Do sanctuary states lose fed funding?

It seems to me there are a few general laws all 50 states should be able to agree on. And keeping illegals out should be one of the easy ones.

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.

As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

That's pretty much their choice now. But if they don't want to help, the feds should be allowed to cutoff their federal funds. It would already be the law of the land if not for leftist activist judges.

Some money you could cut without problems. Money that is entitlement would be a problem.

 

[SavannahMann]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.

As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

Ok then, can states that aren't sanctuary check a persons citizenship before allowing them to cross their border? Do sanctuary states lose fed funding?

It seems to me there are a few general laws all 50 states should be able to agree on. And keeping illegals out should be one of the easy ones.

No. You can't check people at the state line. Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia

Laws we all agree on are Federal. The Federal Government can and does pass, and enforce those laws. Sanctuary cities, and states, are choosing to allow the Feds to enforce those laws without assistance.

Now, if the Federal Government in retaliation decides to stop providing military equipment to the police forces, I'm fine with that too. There is no law I am aware of that mandates those grants. Discretionary spending is also free game IMO. Mandated money is not. If the law says that the school districts must get the money, they get it sanctuary or not.

 

[sartre play]

If your local police jail for federal hold does that come out of your local taxes or do the feds reimburse? I would think it would be up to the locals, if they have the time & manpower to assist.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

In the 1990's, even while I was voting Democratic, I agreed with an argument from the Right. That argument during the Brady Law fallout was that the law improperly expected local police, specifically the County Sheriff's, to conduct background checks on prospective gun buyers. I agreed that any Federal Law that demanded that the Local Police conduct investigations was a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court agreed. Printz v. United States - Wikipedia

We are not talking about actions to insure the civil rights of the people are protected. We're not talking about reading Miranda, to insure that the people know about their rights under the Constitution. We are't talking about making sure that the jails are humane, and that being sent to one does not violate cruel and unusual. We are talking about expecting the Local Police to enforce Federal Law. Requiring it as it were.

Now, Conservatives. Help me out. I believed you were right in the 1990's, when Guns and States Rights were the issue.

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Like any Federal law the locals are 99% of the time the ones that run into the violation first. So it's reasonable they would notify ICE of an illegal so they can go pick them up. Same applies to your gun example. A local cop arrests a person with an illegal weapon and they refer it up the line. They certainly don't just let them go saying oh well not my problem.

My question for you is did you support Arizona enforcing immigration law more vigorously when they tried that? Does states rights go both ways?

Yes. I always support states rights. The only thing I default to higher than that is civil rights. My default is always the constitution. States rights do not trump civil rights, but short of that, I'm always in favor of states rights.

As an example if you like. Let's say you refuse to answer questions of the police. Your rights under the fifth are clear. The Right of the state does not trump your individual right to remain silent. I would object to the state trying to compel you.

I have never argued that the Feds should lay off illegals. I've never argued that the states should. I've only argued that the states should make their own decisions, and carry out their own policies. If the State wants to help ICE, that is their choice. If the states want to tell ICE that no help will be forthcoming, again it is their choice.

Ok then, can states that aren't sanctuary check a persons citizenship before allowing them to cross their border? Do sanctuary states lose fed funding?

It seems to me there are a few general laws all 50 states should be able to agree on. And keeping illegals out should be one of the easy ones.

No. You can't check people at the state line. Freedom of movement under United States law - Wikipedia

Laws we all agree on are Federal. The Federal Government can and does pass, and enforce those laws. Sanctuary cities, and states, are choosing to allow the Feds to enforce those laws without assistance.

Now, if the Federal Government in retaliation decides to stop providing military equipment to the police forces, I'm fine with that too. There is no law I am aware of that mandates those grants. Discretionary spending is also free game IMO. Mandated money is not. If the law says that the school districts must get the money, they get it sanctuary or not.

First word of the first quote in your link is citizens. Illegals are not citizens and there's no law against checking your ID before letting you cross a state border. If you're a citizen you can go anywhere. If your illegal then you're not. It irritates the crap out of me the left wants to treat illegals with the same rights we have. They have no rights and deserve none of those protections.

 

[SavannahMann]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

 

[BluesLegend]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

Lib please I'd mobilize 200,000 national guard troops and boot illegals out of our country, you there illegal looking person show your papers!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes.

After serving time for committing those crimes, should illegal aliens be held for the Feds, or should local law enforcement release them back into the community?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

This really isn't about local police doing federal work, it's more about local police holding law breakers until feds arrive to do theirs.

As a taxpayer of my city, I wouldn't think twice about our police holding illegals in custody for a day or two or even several days. It's money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

After 911, George Bush realized that one of the problems we had detecting those terrorists is that our agencies were not working together. They kept information away from each other and that breakdown weakened our defenses. We had terrorists attending pilot school, and one even told the instructor he didn't care about takeoff or landing, he only cared about how to fly the plane once in flight. Another terrorist was stopped by local police and issued a ticket for a traffic offense. They even used our internet for communications.

The question is are we going to work together to reduce the amount of illegals in this country or not? If we do, we may be able to accomplish some things. If we are going to fight each other, we won't accomplish much.

 

[SavannahMann]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes.

After serving time for committing those crimes, should illegal aliens be held for the Feds, or should local law enforcement release them back into the community?

You really don't know what we are talking about do you?

 

[dcbl]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Because immigration law is under the perview of the federal government , specifically the executive branch

Also, as I understand it, the Feds are not strong arming local law enforcement; they are merely withholding federal funds from local municipalities that fail to cooperate

I just don't see a tenth amendment violation here

 

[SavannahMann]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

This really isn't about local police doing federal work, it's more about local police holding law breakers until feds arrive to do theirs.

As a taxpayer of my city, I wouldn't think twice about our police holding illegals in custody for a day or two or even several days. It's money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

After 911, George Bush realized that one of the problems we had detecting those terrorists is that our agencies were not working together. They kept information away from each other and that breakdown weakened our defenses. We had terrorists attending pilot school, and one even told the instructor he didn't care about takeoff or landing, he only cared about how to fly the plane once in flight. Another terrorist was stopped by local police and issued a ticket for a traffic offense. They even used our internet for communications.

The question is are we going to work together to reduce the amount of illegals in this country or not? If we do, we may be able to accomplish some things. If we are going to fight each other, we won't accomplish much.

Ray, you know the 9-11 terrorists were here on valid visas. So even if you rounded up all the illegals, they would have been here anyway.

You say you wouldn't mind the jails in your city holding some illegals for days. Are you sure? Ohio has a serious problem with overcrowding of prisons and jails. So much of a problem that they are looking at abandoning the tough on crime mentality that mandates minimum sentencing.

Proposed reforms could divert 3,400 offenders from Ohio's overcrowded prisons. Not everyone is on board.

By shuffling first time offenders from the over crowded prisons, the jails at capacity will be overcrowded and they'll have to release a bunch of people. Add in a few thousand illegals, and murderers who are citizens will be released to hold illegals.

Remember this?

Lindsay Lohan released from jail shortly after checking in - CNN.com

Lohan was out the next morning. I don't think she even ate a meal. I laughed when her thirty day sentence was considered time served in about seven hours. The threat from the judge was even funnier. If Lohan screwed up again she was going to serve all the 270 sentence. What would that take? A week?

Los Angeles is not alone. Most jails are at or over capacity. It is the old joke about a blivet. Ten pounds in a five pound bag. So how many serious criminals are you going to release to hold a maid who is an illegal immigrant?

I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not a crime. I'm not saying we should ignore it. I am saying that the cities in question may have other priorities that are more serious. Finding your grandfathers watch may be important. But while you are in a burning building, you might want to reconsider your priorities.

We used to have a saying. When you are up to your ass in alligators it's hard to remember that the reason you are here is to drain the swamp.

One of the reasons that cities like Los Angeles give is investigation of serious crimes. The do not want an unsolved murder because the witnesses are more afraid of the police and won't talk.

 

[SavannahMann]

Explain why it is not a Tenth Amendment violation to demand that local police enforce Federal Immigration law. Tell me why it is wrong to demand that the Sheriff conduct background checks, but right to require that same Sheriff to enforce Immigration laws.

Because immigration law is under the perview of the federal government , specifically the executive branch

Also, as I understand it, the Feds are not strong arming local law enforcement; they are merely withholding federal funds from local municipalities that fail to cooperate

I just don't see a tenth amendment violation here

Thomas Homan, ICE chief, says immigrant ‘sanctuaries’ break smuggling laws

If you don't cooperate you are going to jail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes.

After serving time for committing those crimes, should illegal aliens be held for the Feds, or should local law enforcement release them back into the community?

You really don't know what we are talking about do you?

Please, explain it to me.
And answer my question.
Or avoid it some more.......

 

[BrokeLoser]

Because illegals are killing, raping, and assaulting American citizens that's why.

And for the rapes, murders, and robberies the local police should arrest them for those crimes. Those are the laws the local police are supposed to enforce. That is why the states authorize police powers, and give authority to the police. To enforce state, county, and or city laws as authorized.

Now, do you want local police enforcing federal law? Tax evasion is a big problem, why not let the county cops enforce tax law? The environmental protection agency is stretched pretty thin, why not have the local cops enforcing environmental laws? Just think, you could be pulled over for speeding and have to produce your tax records to prove you paid all the taxes you owed. The police could check to make sure the Social Security Disabled people are actually disabled. There are a lot of federal laws. There are laws about radio transmitters. Why not have the local cops checking on those?

This really isn't about local police doing federal work, it's more about local police holding law breakers until feds arrive to do theirs.

As a taxpayer of my city, I wouldn't think twice about our police holding illegals in custody for a day or two or even several days. It's money well spent as far as I'm concerned.

After 911, George Bush realized that one of the problems we had detecting those terrorists is that our agencies were not working together. They kept information away from each other and that breakdown weakened our defenses. We had terrorists attending pilot school, and one even told the instructor he didn't care about takeoff or landing, he only cared about how to fly the plane once in flight. Another terrorist was stopped by local police and issued a ticket for a traffic offense. They even used our internet for communications.

The question is are we going to work together to reduce the amount of illegals in this country or not? If we do, we may be able to accomplish some things. If we are going to fight each other, we won't accomplish much.

Ray, you know the 9-11 terrorists were here on valid visas. So even if you rounded up all the illegals, they would have been here anyway.

You say you wouldn't mind the jails in your city holding some illegals for days. Are you sure? Ohio has a serious problem with overcrowding of prisons and jails. So much of a problem that they are looking at abandoning the tough on crime mentality that mandates minimum sentencing.

Proposed reforms could divert 3,400 offenders from Ohio's overcrowded prisons. Not everyone is on board.

By shuffling first time offenders from the over crowded prisons, the jails at capacity will be overcrowded and they'll have to release a bunch of people. Add in a few thousand illegals, and murderers who are citizens will be released to hold illegals.

Remember this?

Lindsay Lohan released from jail shortly after checking in - CNN.com

Lohan was out the next morning. I don't think she even ate a meal. I laughed when her thirty day sentence was considered time served in about seven hours. The threat from the judge was even funnier. If Lohan screwed up again she was going to serve all the 270 sentence. What would that take? A week?

Los Angeles is not alone. Most jails are at or over capacity. It is the old joke about a blivet. Ten pounds in a five pound bag. So how many serious criminals are you going to release to hold a maid who is an illegal immigrant?

I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not a crime. I'm not saying we should ignore it. I am saying that the cities in question may have other priorities that are more serious. Finding your grandfathers watch may be important. But while you are in a burning building, you might want to reconsider your priorities.

We used to have a saying. When you are up to your ass in alligators it's hard to remember that the reason you are here is to drain the swamp.

One of the reasons that cities like Los Angeles give is investigation of serious crimes. The do not want an unsolved murder because the witnesses are more afraid of the police and won't talk.

"I'm not saying that illegal immigration is not a crime. I'm not saying we should ignore it. I am saying that the cities in question may have other priorities that are more serious. Finding your grandfathers watch may be important. But while you are in a burning building, you might want to reconsider your priorities."
Is there a larger more costly problem in this country right now? What should be a greater priority?

"One of the reasons that cities like Los Angeles give is investigation of serious crimes. The do not want an unsolved murder because the witnesses are more afraid of the police and won't talk"
That is the claim but is it sensible? Can that bullshit claim be quantified?
If true would it outweigh all the negatives related to illegals? Have we reached the point where we should be so sackless and allow criminals the ability to leverage our laws? LA is ran by Democratic filth and anchor babies...they want to protect their families and voter base. That's the real reason.
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country enough to justify keeping them around JUST IN CASE they witness a crime?
Libtards-
"We think it makes perfect sense to pay a family of seven 90k-ish per year to be a watch-dog JUST IN CASE they witness a crime."
LOL...Only in Libtardo Land