Sanctuary cities release criminals back onto streets instead of notifying ICE

[Vandalshandle]

Seems like the feds should offer to reimburse cities for their cost of enforcing federal law, which isn't their job, but the feds, and many people on this board, seem to think that they should do the fed's jobs with city tax money. I guess it just isn't worth it to the feds to do that.

The Fed's already pay them. That's why there is talk of withholding their federal funds, as sanctuary cities are not in compliance with the requirements to receive those funds.

Absolutely false. The grants that the feds want to withhold from cities have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the cost of detaining federal suspects. In fact, that is why the courts will not allow the feds to do that. I live near South Tucson, which is a sanctuary city. The city council went on record years ago as stating that if the feds will reimburse them for detaining and feeding federal criminal suspects, they would so detain them. The feds refuse. As for Tucson, itself, it is on the "sanctuary city" list only because the police have a policy not to call immigration out to arrest people at schools and churches who are suspected illegal aliens. In short, this nation does not yet have the Mexican form of "federales" to turn it in to a federal police state.

 

[Tresha91203]

Seems like the feds should offer to reimburse cities for their cost of enforcing federal law, which isn't their job, but the feds, and many people on this board, seem to think that they should do the fed's jobs with city tax money. I guess it just isn't worth it to the feds to do that.

The Fed's already pay them. That's why there is talk of withholding their federal funds, as sanctuary cities are not in compliance with the requirements to receive those funds.

Absolutely false. The grants that the feds want to withhold from cities have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the cost of detaining federal suspects. In fact, that is why the courts will not allow the feds to do that. I live near South Tucson, which is a sanctuary city. The city council went on record years ago as stating that if the feds will reimburse them for detaining and feeding federal criminal suspects, they would so detain them. The feds refuse. As for Tucson, itself, it is on the "sanctuary city" list only because the police have a policy not to call immigration out to arrest people at schools and churches who are suspected illegal aliens. In short, this nation does not yet have the Mexican form of "federales" to turn it in to a federal police state.

Federal grants all have language that requires the entity receiving them to be in compliance with ALL federal laws and regulations. That's how the feds manipulate the states. They threaten to withhold universities' funding over transgenders in the bathroom. They withhold highway money unless the state changes the BAC levels for DUI from 0.1 to 0.08. If states want money from the feds, they have to meet all of the fed's requirements. Sometimes states refuse (Medicaid Expansion for example) and sometimes they make that deal with the feds.

Cities and counties hold US citizens for other states for up to 30 days AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. Cities and counties hold US citizens for up to 30 days for the federal government AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE for any other crime the feds want them for. These cities are saying they will not detain illegals in their custody already for other crimes (not just being here illegally, but another, different crime), but we will continue to detain US citizens for you and pay for it ourselves, no problem. WTF?!?!?

Does Tuscon release hate crime perpetrators in 12 hours because the feds were too slow? Does Tuscon release a gang banger with a warrant from New Orleans because It's not my job!? Tuscon, not even the state of Arizona (sovereign), but the City of Tuscon should have the right to declare that an illegal alien who has been deported multiple times and committed multiple crimes in the United States should be set upon all of America? Tuscon should be held partially liable or criminally negligent for EVERY crime that illegal commits thereafter.

 

[jon_berzerk]

13 chances to deport the rapist, and they didn't want to.

In a sane world, these politicians would be mobbed by the outraged citizens and lucky to escape with their lives.

why wouldnt they release this guy

the leftists side with criminals and against law and order

 

[Vandalshandle]

Seems like the feds should offer to reimburse cities for their cost of enforcing federal law, which isn't their job, but the feds, and many people on this board, seem to think that they should do the fed's jobs with city tax money. I guess it just isn't worth it to the feds to do that.

The Fed's already pay them. That's why there is talk of withholding their federal funds, as sanctuary cities are not in compliance with the requirements to receive those funds.

Absolutely false. The grants that the feds want to withhold from cities have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the cost of detaining federal suspects. In fact, that is why the courts will not allow the feds to do that. I live near South Tucson, which is a sanctuary city. The city council went on record years ago as stating that if the feds will reimburse them for detaining and feeding federal criminal suspects, they would so detain them. The feds refuse. As for Tucson, itself, it is on the "sanctuary city" list only because the police have a policy not to call immigration out to arrest people at schools and churches who are suspected illegal aliens. In short, this nation does not yet have the Mexican form of "federales" to turn it in to a federal police state.

Federal grants all have language that requires the entity receiving them to be in compliance with ALL federal laws and regulations. That's how the feds manipulate the states. They threaten to withhold universities' funding over transgenders in the bathroom. They withhold highway money unless the state changes the BAC levels for DUI from 0.1 to 0.08. If states want money from the feds, they have to meet all of the fed's requirements. Sometimes states refuse (Medicaid Expansion for example) and sometimes they make that deal with the feds.

Cities and counties hold US citizens for other states for up to 30 days AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. Cities and counties hold US citizens for up to 30 days for the federal government AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE for any other crime the feds want them for. These cities are saying they will not detain illegals in their custody already for other crimes (not just being here illegally, but another, different crime), but we will continue to detain US citizens for you and pay for it ourselves, no problem. WTF?!?!?

Does Tuscon release hate crime perpetrators in 12 hours because the feds were too slow? Does Tuscon release a gang banger with a warrant from New Orleans because It's not my job!? Tuscon, not even the state of Arizona (sovereign), but the City of Tuscon should have the right to declare that an illegal alien who has been deported multiple times and committed multiple crimes in the United States should be set upon all of America? Tuscon should be held partially liable or criminally negligent for EVERY crime that illegal commits thereafter.

Your whole argument falls apart in the first sentence. There is no legal requirment in the USA in any jurisdiction that requires a city, county, or state, to enforce federal law. If there was, the feds would be arresting state officials in 37 states who have legalized pot.

As for the rest of it, I have no interest whatsoever in the city, county, or state to spend my tax money to enforce federal law for two reasons. I. I already pay federal taxes. They can use that money to enforce their laws. 2. I am not interested in the federal government infringing upon the constitutional Independence of states and their municipalities.

 

[Tresha91203]

Seems like the feds should offer to reimburse cities for their cost of enforcing federal law, which isn't their job, but the feds, and many people on this board, seem to think that they should do the fed's jobs with city tax money. I guess it just isn't worth it to the feds to do that.

The Fed's already pay them. That's why there is talk of withholding their federal funds, as sanctuary cities are not in compliance with the requirements to receive those funds.

Absolutely false. The grants that the feds want to withhold from cities have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the cost of detaining federal suspects. In fact, that is why the courts will not allow the feds to do that. I live near South Tucson, which is a sanctuary city. The city council went on record years ago as stating that if the feds will reimburse them for detaining and feeding federal criminal suspects, they would so detain them. The feds refuse. As for Tucson, itself, it is on the "sanctuary city" list only because the police have a policy not to call immigration out to arrest people at schools and churches who are suspected illegal aliens. In short, this nation does not yet have the Mexican form of "federales" to turn it in to a federal police state.

Federal grants all have language that requires the entity receiving them to be in compliance with ALL federal laws and regulations. That's how the feds manipulate the states. They threaten to withhold universities' funding over transgenders in the bathroom. They withhold highway money unless the state changes the BAC levels for DUI from 0.1 to 0.08. If states want money from the feds, they have to meet all of the fed's requirements. Sometimes states refuse (Medicaid Expansion for example) and sometimes they make that deal with the feds.

Cities and counties hold US citizens for other states for up to 30 days AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE. Cities and counties hold US citizens for up to 30 days for the federal government AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE for any other crime the feds want them for. These cities are saying they will not detain illegals in their custody already for other crimes (not just being here illegally, but another, different crime), but we will continue to detain US citizens for you and pay for it ourselves, no problem. WTF?!?!?

Does Tuscon release hate crime perpetrators in 12 hours because the feds were too slow? Does Tuscon release a gang banger with a warrant from New Orleans because It's not my job!? Tuscon, not even the state of Arizona (sovereign), but the City of Tuscon should have the right to declare that an illegal alien who has been deported multiple times and committed multiple crimes in the United States should be set upon all of America? Tuscon should be held partially liable or criminally negligent for EVERY crime that illegal commits thereafter.

Your whole argument falls apart in the first sentence. There is no legal requirment in the USA in any jurisdiction that requires a city, county, or state, to enforce federal law. If there was, the feds would be arresting state officials in 37 states who have legalized pot.

As for the rest of it, I have no interest whatsoever in the city, county, or state to spend my tax money to enforce federal law for two reasons. I. I already pay federal taxes. They can use that money to enforce their laws. 2. I am not interested in the federal government infringing upon the constitutional Independence of states and their municipalities.

I'm for smaller Fed and more State cotrol so I would generally agree with you, except you seem to be just fine with it when it is against a US citizen. If US citizens are subject to being held for 30 days while waiting for some other state or the feds to pick them up, illegals should be as well. It is baffling that any country would give higher status to non-citizens than to citizens. When all things are equal, the US citizen arrested in that bar fight will be held longer than the illegal he was fighting. Why? Can you name any other country in the world that does this?

 

[Kondor3]

Deportation does not work! Build that wall.

Walls are meant to be climbed over and tunneled under and blasted through and are not sustainable over time as a permanent solution.

Deportation doesn't work either, with one exception...

SELF-Deportation.

And, the only way that happens is if we establish conditions sufficiently onerous, in a legal and economic framework, to make those already here, want to leave under their own power and on their own dime and at the speed of light, and to make those not yet here give up on the idea of coming here as simply not being worthwhile.

Crucifying a few large scale employers of Illegal Aliens would also prove advantageous.

Illegal immigration across southwest border down 70 percent under Trump

Even more now...

And all that without a wall... imagine that ! ;-)

 

[JQPublic1]

Anyone here illegally should have a tattoo across their face identifying them as an illegal. If they come back, they can be shot on sight by anyone, civilian or law enforcement.

No wall necessary.

Nah, tattoos wouldn't be noticeable on the darker ones.

 

[MaryL]

I have posted this before, but I will do it AGAIN. I was recently a juror in a case that ironically ended up having the defendant deported. He had a family and a job here and had been here many years, but was an illegal alien. If you knew all the shenanigans my mayor is going through to keep illegals caught in the criminal justice system from being deported, you would roll your eyes and laugh. Breaking any law has penalties. Like it or not, and deportation is simply a result of violating a law. When people go to such great lengths maneuvering behind the scenes to help people avoid the law, that is called aiding and abetting. And it surely violates the understanding most voters have that our politicians will above all, respect ALL laws and the will of the people.

Obviously, the will if the people in your city is to maintain a sanctuary city. otherwise, they would have voted your mayor and city council out of office.

It's absolutely NOT the will of the city, it's certainly the will of somebody. I know even Hispanics that despise this current push to legalize illegals. And still, you skirt the question.and voices like you just ad to the confusion . Why can't we expect public representatives to follow immigration laws? Let's get to the crux of the matter.

Mary, I have no idea what you are ranting about. In the majority of voters in your town are opposed to having a sanctuary city, they would vote the city official out. It really is as simple as that.

First of all, I can't say how much I respect you as a poster for not indulging in the anger and hate we see all to often here. I do get carried away myself. I disagree with you , as a Denverite. We have all seen how a small outspoken voting block can win over a majority because the majority became lackadaisical,apathetic or just to lazy to vote. This fact is making me cynical about American democracy, when illegal aliens are empowered and people that finesse this situation act like they are validated. Like I said, I profoundly disagree with you on this.

 

[MaryL]

I would like to add to my frustration on illegal immigration and the voter base that empowers them. Sure, a lot of people (me included) let this slide for years and didn't vote to empower our beliefs because we believed in the American voter. People make mistakes, and that's putting it mildly. I see the influx of millennials into the Colorado as mostly liberal. They have no roots or investment in the state, long term. They are nomads. But they vote for legalizing marijuana. Bingo, we violate federal laws and legalize marijuana. This wasn't the wishes of NATIVE Coloradans We also also get these same fleeting flash in the pan voters that push for the state to violate federal immigration laws, as well. By people that have no history here, they just trivialize Coloradans. I am so tired of this, we need to amend voting laws to be restricted to persons that have been in a state for 8 years or more, and also be able to exclude anyone with questionable immigration status.

 

[easyt65]

If these released criminals perpetrate crimes after being released the Feds should step in and arrest the Sanctuary Cities' Mayors and Chiefs of Police as being accomplices, aiding and abetting, in those new crimes.

 

[Unkotare]

If these released criminals perpetrate crimes after being released the Feds should step in and arrest the Sanctuary Cities' Mayors and Chiefs of Police as being accomplices, aiding and abetting, in those new crimes.

And strap them to rockets and shoot them to the moon! Then execute everyone in their family for three generations! And, and destroy the earth so it can't happen again! Yeah, that's it!

Enough with the childish, self-indulgent, waste of time bullshit. Nothing will ever get better if nobody can get past emo-hour nonsense.

 

[easyt65]

Snowflakes either don't kow or don't care that the officials who are protecting these criminals by releasing them are directly contributing to the violence and crime they are committing against American citizens.

Hey, unk, I don't know what you've been smoking, but you probably bought it off an illegal.

I have about had it with stories about American citizens being murdered, killed in DUIs, raped, robbed, and attacked by illegals released from jails in cases like this. We have enough problems without importing more and protecting them once here.

Charge the Mayors / Sheriffs with accessory. That will drive the point home.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Charge the Mayors / Sheriffs with accessory. That will drive the point home.

Not...going...to...happen...

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The purpose of sanctuary cities is to give the worst and most violent criminals a safe haven from which they can kill, rape, rob, beat, at will, with the full approval and assistance of democrats.

When a gang banger is able to hide in sanctuary and kill the elderly, it serves a democrat two fer. It gives security to the criminal (usually a dreamer) and eliminates an older American. If a white American, it's a three fer.

 

[Unkotare]

...we need to amend voting laws to be restricted to persons that have been in a state for 8 years or more....

The Constitution of the United States of America says NO.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am betting that none of the posters above can even agree on what the hell a "sanctuary city" is. I would love to see each of you define the term in a way that could possibly be used in a legal action.

 

[Correll]

13 chances to deport the rapist, and they didn't want to.

In a sane world, these politicians would be mobbed by the outraged citizens and lucky to escape with their lives.

Instead they get reelected.

Which raises serious question about our system of democracy or our culture.

 

[Correll]

I am betting that none of the posters above can even agree on what the hell a "sanctuary city" is. I would love to see each of you define the term in a way that could possibly be used in a legal action.

Your desire to change the topic to a legal definition argument among non-lawyers is nothing but an attempt to muddle an issue that you know you cannot defend your position on.


IN other words, nothing but an attempt at a deflection.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I am betting that none of the posters above can even agree on what the hell a "sanctuary city" is. I would love to see each of you define the term in a way that could possibly be used in a legal action.

Your desire to change the topic to a legal definition argument among non-lawyers is nothing but an attempt to muddle an issue that you know you cannot defend your position on.


IN other words, nothing but an attempt at a deflection.

OK, I understand. Defining exactly what you are ranting about is muddleing the issue.....

 

[Correll]

I am betting that none of the posters above can even agree on what the hell a "sanctuary city" is. I would love to see each of you define the term in a way that could possibly be used in a legal action.

Your desire to change the topic to a legal definition argument among non-lawyers is nothing but an attempt to muddle an issue that you know you cannot defend your position on.


IN other words, nothing but an attempt at a deflection.

OK, I understand. Defining exactly what you are ranting about is muddleing the issue.....

Quibbling about semantics is muddling the issue. This is not a court of law. We are not lawyers.


Let's keep this real.


A 65 year old woman was raped because of a status quo that YOU are supporting and that I want to change.


THAT'S this issue, that you want to run and hide from, so that you don't have to defend it.