Now a total of 340 Sanctuary Cities

[g5000]

So I picked a random "sanctuary city" from the list of 340.

Vineland, Colorado. Population: 251.

Vineland, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

YAWN

and?

so?

EXACTLY!

Big fucking yawn.

 

[Vandalshandle]

A city is not under legal obligation to enforce federal law. They usually cooperate with federal authorities, but they don't have to. If they were required to enforce federal law, they would have been held to that legal standard in a court of law. If the feds want to pass a law penalizing the cities for failure to cooperate with the feds, then they are trampling on cities legal jurisdiction. This would be a bad precedent, but it will not happen anyway, since Obama has already said that he would veto it.

so a city can violate any federal law??

like environmental laws?
civil right's laws?
worker laws??

really??? interesting

Again, there is no law requiring a city to enforce a federal law. If you think there is, feel free to cite it, chapter and verse.

and AGAIN; are you ok with cities not enforcing any of the other laws too???

I am perfectly content with cities enforcing city law, and feds enforcing federal law. I really don't think that it is a good idea for the FBI to arrest me for exceeding the speed limit in my town.

laughable deflection

Apparently, bed, you do not understand the basic concept of separation of powers. I will tell you something else that will rattle your cage. Cities are not going to arrest and prosecute someone for cheating on their federal income tax!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (The horror!)

 

[hortysir]

McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate

Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.

Federal power being used to coerce local governments.

Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?

as long as you agree that local govts can ignore any federal law im all in. for instance, if localities in many states want to eliminate estate taxes and and exempt business from federal income taxes you would agree?

No, that is not what I am saying.

I have time and again pointed out to the rubes that their benchmarks will come back and snap them in their faces one day.

Today is that day.

They cheered when their right wing heroes disobeyed or refused to enforce federal laws. So their whining about other people ignoring federal laws rings hollow and hypocritical.

I don't think you can find a post where the person who started this thread has ever advocated ignoring or breaking any law

 

[hortysir]

Here's the list: Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

From the anti-Mexican Center for Immigration Studies.

i clicked on my city, and see that they have passed a law saying that they will not hand over anyone to ICE unless ICE reimburses them for the detention.

Seems fair to me. I already pay federal taxes.

How do feel, then, about states not expanding Medicaid unless they get the federal moneies promised for doing so?

 

[g5000]

Here's the list: Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

From the anti-Mexican Center for Immigration Studies.

i clicked on my city, and see that they have passed a law saying that they will not hand over anyone to ICE unless ICE reimburses them for the detention.

Seems fair to me. I already pay federal taxes.

How do feel, then, about states not expanding Medicaid unless they get the federal moneies promised for doing so?

They do get the money. That's why Governor Kasich expanded Medicaid in Ohio. His state has been taxed for the expansion and so he wanted that money back.

 

[Flopper]

There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'

The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)

“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”

Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library

If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.

But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.

The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.

Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.

Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.

 

[Ringel05]

There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'

The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)

“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”

Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library

If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.

But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.

The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.

Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.

Cities are under no such legal obligation.

Another example of the same thing is that the State of Colorado has legalized pot, although it is still illegal under federal law. The state does not have to turn over to the feds anyone they have in their custody who also grows pot.

It's two different things altogether, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Ringel05]

There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'

The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)

“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”

Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library

If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.

But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.

The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.

Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.

Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.

The detainer list is a defacto federal bench warrant. And yes most cities do comply but some openly defy the feds, San Francisco and L.A. are two of those, I hope Kate's family's law suit bankrupts them.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'

The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)

“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”

Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library

If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.

But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.

The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.

Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.

Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.

Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights as we do. The only right they should have is the right to get the fuck out

 

[Ravi]

Number of sanctuary cities grows to 340; thousands of illegals released to commit new crimes

And, as a result????

v
v
v
v
All told, 9,295 immigrants whom ICE wanted to pick up from January through September last year were released instead.

Of those, 5,947 had significant criminal records


McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate

In general, first-generation immigrants, whether in the country illegally or not, commit fewer violent and property crimes than either second-generation or native-born citizens. And there's scant evidence that San Francisco is more dangerous than non-sanctuary cities of a similar size. In fact, its murder rate is about one-third that of non-sanctuary Indianapolis.

Sanctuary Cities Are Safer

 

[Clementine]

Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.

Federal power being used to coerce local governments.

Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?

Doesn't explain why some states are deliberately breaking federal laws. Of course, they get away with it because the federal government isn't following the laws on the books and encourage states to do the same.

While states should make their own decisions, they must be compliant with federal laws.

 

[g5000]

Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.

Federal power being used to coerce local governments.

Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?

Doesn't explain why some states are deliberately breaking federal laws. Of course, they get away with it because the federal government isn't following the laws on the books and encourage states to do the same.

While states should make their own decisions, they must be compliant with federal laws.

Remember that the next time a law enforcement official says he is not going to enforce gun laws.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Here's the list: Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States

From the anti-Mexican Center for Immigration Studies.

i clicked on my city, and see that they have passed a law saying that they will not hand over anyone to ICE unless ICE reimburses them for the detention.

Seems fair to me. I already pay federal taxes.

How do feel, then, about states not expanding Medicaid unless they get the federal moneies promised for doing so?

That is their choice. Those that make those decisions in those states can be removed by their constituency.

 

[Flopper]

There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'

The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)

“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”

Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library

If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.

But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.

The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.

Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.

Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.

The detainer list is a defacto federal bench warrant. And yes most cities do comply but some openly defy the feds, San Francisco and L.A. are two of those, I hope Kate's family's law suit bankrupts them.

No, it's not. The detainee list issued by ICE has exactly the same information contained in online detainee database, first name, last name, country of origin, birth date A-number and status (either not in custody or the name of the immigration facility where the person is held). It is not a warrant because it does not list the violation and is not signed by federal judge.

Detainee List information does not contain pictures or fingerprints of the detainee so if falls on local law enforcement to do research to determine if the person they are holding is the same person on the detainee list.

 

[Flopper]

There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'

The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)

“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”

Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library

If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.

But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.

The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.

Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.

Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.

Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights as we do. The only right they should have is the right to get the fuck out

The courts say otherwise. It we did not extend any constitutional rights to those detained by ICE, then other countries would follow suit by denying rights to American held in their country.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There's a great deal of ignorance and misinformation, found mostly on the right, as to what constitutes a so-called 'sanctuary city.'

The Federal government cannot compel state and local governments to enforce Federal laws, including immigration laws. (See e.g. Printz v. US)

“Cities and States aren’t obligated to use their own resources to help enforce Federal immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are just places that have standardized that decision to put those resources elsewhere.”

Sanctuary Cities and Immigration | LegalMatch Law Library

If a jurisdiction were to be asked by Federal authorities to detain someone suspected of having entered the country without authorization, such a jurisdiction would comply in accordance with Federal law.

But there is nothing compelling cities or other local jurisdictions to unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented, using their own limited resources, absent being requested to do so by Federal authorities, nor would a city making the decision to not unilaterally seek out and detain those suspected of being undocumented be in 'violation' of Federal immigration law.

The ridiculous notion that so-called 'sanctuary cities' are somehow 'aiding and abetting' those undocumented from being detained by Federal authorizes is an absolute lie.

Like as has already been said cities generally don't go out and look for illegals and that's not really the issue. The issue is those illegals with criminal records who are on the ICE detainer list the cities do have a legal obligation to hold if those illegals have been arrested for anything else for ICE to pick up. Some cities will not hold those illegals unless ICE sends them a specific "request". The problem with that (and the cities know it) is at least half the time the illegals are released before the ICE paperwork can be processed.
That's why something like Kate's Law is needed which requires by federal law that all illegals who have a felony and has returned to the US (and has been arrested on anything else in whichever city they're in) will automatically be handed over to the feds and will serve an automatic 5 year sentence before being deported.
Most likely the law will not pass as some idiot wingnuts in congress have attached an anti-sanctuary city bill to it which no Democrat will vote for. Both sides are more concerned with politics, as usual.

Local law enforce has a legal problem with detaining people based on the detainer list. It is not a federal warrant and is not a constitutionally valid basis for detaining a person. Typically, most of the so called sanctuary cities". do notify ICE that they are holding a person on the detain list. However, local law enforcement can't hold a person longer than 72 hours without legal cause. If ICE wants a person transferred to their custody, they need a warrant.

Illegal aliens do not have constitutional rights as we do. The only right they should have is the right to get the fuck out

The courts say otherwise. It we did not extend any constitutional rights to those detained by ICE, then other countries would follow suit by denying rights to American held in their country.

You mean like Iran & Mexico already do?

 

[longknife]

Are Sanctuary Cities Part of America?



340 cities now openly tell illegal immigrants they are welcome. Even to the point of refusing to jail convicted killers, rapists, child molesters, drug dealers, and thieves. ICE releases thousands every year and they first thing they do is flee to the nearest sanctuary city – which they all know and are even told about by the Mexican government.



What is happening to the respect for the laws of this land? If not federal laws and regulations, would you at least expect them to honor the U.S. Constitution?


This is the gist of the story @ Are Sanctuary Cities the New Confederates?=



What do you believe?

 

[paulitician]

These local authorities should be arrested and prosecuted. They're breaking the law. It's time to secure our border and restore the Rule of Law.

 

[Rustic]

McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate

Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.

Federal power being used to coerce local governments. Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?

It's federal government enforcing federal law

It's federal government trying to coerce local governments.

Right wingers cheer when Sheriffs say they won't enforce federal gun laws.

Hmmmm...

Federal gun laws are unconstitutional...

 

[g5000]

McConnell's senate will be drafting legislation to pull grant money away from these cites and give more to those that cooperate

Think about that sentence for a while. Ruminate on it. Ponder how it fits, or doesn't fit, into Republican principles of small, decentralized government.

Federal power being used to coerce local governments. Whatever happened to the principle that local governments know what their people want better than the federal government does?

It's federal government enforcing federal law

It's federal government trying to coerce local governments.

Right wingers cheer when Sheriffs say they won't enforce federal gun laws.

Hmmmm...

Federal gun laws are unconstitutional...

Wrong.

According to the Supreme Court, not even the Assault Weapons Ban was unconstitutional.