Why do you support shipping in 100s of thousands of un-vetted muslims? why you want open borders? Are you a citizen of the world or the United states? How can you have a country without borders? Do you worry about American children coming down with third world diseases because we have open borders?
Trump wants blacks to gamble on his "what the hell do you have to lose"
- Thread starter nat4900
- Start date
Why do you support shipping in 100s of thousands of un-vetted muslims? why you want open borders? Are you a citizen of the world or the United states? How can you have a country without borders? Do you worry about American children coming down with third world diseases because we have open borders?
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
Why do you ask leading questions that don't apply to me? You never served America in uniform so don't grill me about some extraneous BS that I have nothing to do with.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
I love how liberals think they are above answering questions, Clinton is the exact same way. Don't question liberals!
Indeependent
Diamond Member
- Nov 19, 2013
- 73,633
- 28,511
- 2,250
What are you on? Semi-ignorant?
Ignore me; you're deaf anyways.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
However, lucky for you ... I have worn the uniform and served. It's not BS to want to have guarded borders, have concern for bringing refugees from a region that is highly volatile to terrorist activity and protecting Americans. It's called using common sense and good judgment, while I'm concerned over what the Democrats view of national security actually is. Care to take a stab at it?
You're a moron, who cant think for himself...Bowe Bergdahl.....People like you are an embarrassment to this country. You cant answer the questions because you're a fraud
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
Thanks for your service. But we have guarded borders already . what we need are less incentives for illegals to want to come here. I recommend tougher enforcement of laws against the Americans who hire illegals. We could put a dent in the national debt with all the fines and penalties .
I'd like to point out that the flow of illegal immigrant is subsiding. Haven't you heard?
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Which is why Obama will not take a stand against sanctuary cities who blatantly defies Federal Immigration Laws and harbors those illegal immigrants who sneak across the border. I saw this president's concern for the border when he chose a third bathrooms as the greater priority to threaten Federal Funding to enforce, while looking the other way to cities that choose to hide the knowledge of illegals from ICE Agents and the Federal Government. If we want to show we are serious about the illegal immigration problem, we need a stronger border presence and deterrence paid for by Federal Funding cuts of those states that support Sanctuary Cities. If they want to see their funding restored then they need to respect and uphold federal laws. This idea that the state's have rights to make their own decisions, over what Federal Government laws in Washington DC forces upon those states, died with the end of the civil war.
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
This Sanctuary City phenomenon didn't start on Obama's watch it started back in1980 on Reagan's watch.
The Sanctuary movement wasn't meant make US cities safe harbors for illegal aliens, it was initiated by various diverse religious organizations which banded together to oppose the deportation or forced repatriation of refugees fleeing civil war and persecution in their homelands. Sanctuary doesn't apply to Mexicans because there is no civil war going on there.
Your Senate Republicans know the history even if you don't. And they also know that the Sanctuary Movement does NOT preclude ICE or any other federal immigration agency from apprehending illegal aliens in those cities you call Sanctuary Cities. They also know that municipalities , counties and states are not required to enforce federal law and, in this case, the courts have held that when the spheres of jurisdiction are abrogated in that way, the 4th Amendment is violated.
Some have confused “sanctuary city” policies with the notion that immigrants in these communities are insulated from any immigration enforcement action against them. In fact, nothing in a so-called sanctuary city policy prevent federal enforcement actions. Some cities and localities—including San Francisco—have used the term “sanctuary” in their community policing policies in solidarity with the movement of the 1980s.
So What is it about the Sanctuary Movement that drives Republican politicians to want to ban it? BUt banning isn't an option, so they want cut Federal law enforcement funding for so -called Sanctuary Cities that take in refugees form their war torn countries.
Senate Democrats have temporarily blocked a measure that would deny federal law enforcement funds to so-called "sanctuary cities," where local authorities don't automatically report undocumented immigrants without a record of serious criminal offenses to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. The idea for the bill was raised and enthusiastically promoted by figures on Fox News, who urged Republicans to "starve" these cities of federal money, despite experts noting that defunding would hurt public safety and evidence showing that so-called "sanctuary cities" are not actually a "safe haven" for undocumented immigrants and, in fact, deter criminality.
Congress' Attempt To Cut Federal Funds For "Sanctuary Cities" Was Built On Fox News' Rhetoric
Immigrant advocates maintain that sanctuary cities are effective because they allow undocumented immigrants to report crimes that they otherwise would be hesitant to come forward to talk about. A 2015 National Latin@ Network for Healthy Families and Communities survey found that 41 percent of foreign-born Latinas interviewed reported that they were afraid to call the police or go to court because they feared they could be deported.
http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2015/07/23/3683375/repub-bills-sanctuary-cities/
I stand with the Democrats on this one. The Republicans are evil bastards who don't mind jeopardizing the safety of entire communities by defunding their local law enforcement agencies of "Sanctuary Cities."
Last edited:
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Sanctuary cities and not reporting illegal immigrants is what encourages illegals to come into this country. California did not need Reagan to establish and promote it, California is a very liberal state that took this role on their own. Name a republican red state that encourages sanctuary cities within the borders.
If liberal states want to keep their funding, they can choose to put an end to sanctuary cities. Until then, don't come to me about corporate businesses needing to uphold the law while making excuses for those cities which harbor illegal immigrants. Either you are serious about the illegal immigration issue, or you're not ... there is no grey area on this. I fully support any measure to crack down on sanctuary cities and hold them accountable for violating Federal Immigration Laws ... including cutting federal funding. These cities made their own choice without encouragement from the Federal Government, and they alone are responsible for the consequences their actions brings.
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
Here is a current map entailing places where Sanctuary cities exist. As you can readily observe many red states have some too.
I was surprised you didn't know that.
Frankly, though. The key issue is enforcing immigration laws does not fall with the purview of state jurisdictions.
Perhaps you are just simply ignorant of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the so-called "Sanctuary cities phenomenon:
STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In the well-known Arizona v. US (11-182), President Obama challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (S.B. 1070). Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 as an anti-illegal immigration measure, with four key provisions at issue before the Court.
With Chief Justice Roberts as the swing-vote, the 5-3 Court rejected three of the provisions for violating the Supremacy Clause. First, the Court reaffirmed that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the federal government. Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens. This is what preempted Section 3, which would have required aliens to carry legal immigration papers at all times. Third, the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work, preempting Section 5(C). Fourth, the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance. This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term Highlights
Last edited:
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
When you begin to understand the difference between refugees and illegal immigrants the sanctuary cities descriptor will start to take on a new context in your mind. A Supreme Court decision is the object of your ire pertaining to illegal immigrants, not the states who properly support Sanctuary Cities harboring known refugees.
For more information see:
Refugee Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is a current map entailing places where Sanctuary cities exist. As you can readily observe many red states have some too.
I was surprised you didn't know that.
Frankly, though. The key issue is enforcing immigration laws does not fall with the purview of state jurisdictions.
Perhaps you are just simply ignorant of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the so-called "Sanctuary cities phenomenon:
STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In the well-known Arizona v. US (11-182), President Obama challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (S.B. 1070). Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 as an anti-illegal immigration measure, with four key provisions at issue before the Court.
With Chief Justice Roberts as the swing-vote, the 5-3 Court rejected three of the provisions for violating the Supremacy Clause. First, the Court reaffirmed that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the federal government. Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens. This is what preempted Section 3, which would have required aliens to carry legal immigration papers at all times. Third, the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work, preempting Section 5(C). Fourth, the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance. This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term Highlights
We don't have them in MI.
When Trump is president, we'll have a lot less of them.
JQPublic1
Gold Member
- Aug 10, 2012
- 14,220
- 1,544
- 280
You will have less than zero?
Here is a current map entailing places where Sanctuary cities exist. As you can readily observe many red states have some too.
I was surprised you didn't know that.
Frankly, though. The key issue is enforcing immigration laws does not fall with the purview of state jurisdictions.
Perhaps you are just simply ignorant of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the so-called "Sanctuary cities phenomenon:
STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In the well-known Arizona v. US (11-182), President Obama challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (S.B. 1070). Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 as an anti-illegal immigration measure, with four key provisions at issue before the Court.
With Chief Justice Roberts as the swing-vote, the 5-3 Court rejected three of the provisions for violating the Supremacy Clause. First, the Court reaffirmed that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the federal government. Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens. This is what preempted Section 3, which would have required aliens to carry legal immigration papers at all times. Third, the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work, preempting Section 5(C). Fourth, the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance. This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term Highlights
We don't have them in MI.
You don't have Sancturary cities but I'll wager that you DO have illegal immigrants.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Here is a current map entailing places where Sanctuary cities exist. As you can readily observe many red states have some too.
I was surprised you didn't know that.
Frankly, though. The key issue is enforcing immigration laws does not fall with the purview of state jurisdictions.
Perhaps you are just simply ignorant of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the so-called "Sanctuary cities phenomenon:
STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In the well-known Arizona v. US (11-182), President Obama challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (S.B. 1070). Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 as an anti-illegal immigration measure, with four key provisions at issue before the Court.
With Chief Justice Roberts as the swing-vote, the 5-3 Court rejected three of the provisions for violating the Supremacy Clause. First, the Court reaffirmed that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the federal government. Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens. This is what preempted Section 3, which would have required aliens to carry legal immigration papers at all times. Third, the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work, preempting Section 5(C). Fourth, the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance. This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term Highlights
Yes I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions. That is, of course, if the map accurately depicts the harboring of illegals from the knowledge of those who seek to enforce immigration in Washington DC. Also, thanks for supporting my argument which states that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state matter, as states can't act on their own behalf with regard to illegal immigration policy. You also gave validity that it is in fact sanctuary cities, and not corporate businesses which hire illegals, which constitute the bigger problem we are facing in this country. It's larger in that it involves state drivers licenses, education tuition costs, providing them with housing, the healthcare mandate, all of which the vast majority is on the taxpayer's dime (especially if they have trouble maintaining work)
To reiterate my point the Federal Government needs to have penalties in place that will put an end to those states which allow cities that harbor illegals from the knowledge of ICE agents to flourish, If you harbor illegals, if you stand in the way of deportation enforcement efforts, you will have your Federal Funding cut as a consequence of your decision. If these cities are indeed encouraging the migration of illegals from Mexico into their states, we will soon see how high a price tag they are willing to pay for placing themselves in the way of enforcing our immigration laws. Why would finding the funds needed to strengthen our southern border be such an issue? Mexico may be off the hook on this one. Of course if these illegals were deported, imagine how much the taxpayers of each state would actually save in not providing these illegals with so many taxpayer benefits. Finally fully enforcing our current federal immigration laws on a national level without hindrance, and tightening up our borders would be one way to have this country back on the right course. That alone would get my support and vote.
Here is a current map entailing places where Sanctuary cities exist. As you can readily observe many red states have some too.
I was surprised you didn't know that.
Frankly, though. The key issue is enforcing immigration laws does not fall with the purview of state jurisdictions.
Perhaps you are just simply ignorant of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the so-called "Sanctuary cities phenomenon:
STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In the well-known Arizona v. US (11-182), President Obama challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (S.B. 1070). Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 as an anti-illegal immigration measure, with four key provisions at issue before the Court.
With Chief Justice Roberts as the swing-vote, the 5-3 Court rejected three of the provisions for violating the Supremacy Clause. First, the Court reaffirmed that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the federal government. Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens. This is what preempted Section 3, which would have required aliens to carry legal immigration papers at all times. Third, the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work, preempting Section 5(C). Fourth, the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance. This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term Highlights
Yes I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions. That is, of course, if the map accurately depicts the harboring of illegals from the knowledge of those who seek to enforce immigration in Washington DC. Also, thanks for supporting my argument which states that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state matter, as states can't act on their own behalf with regard to illegal immigration policy. You also gave validity that it is in fact sanctuary cities, and not corporate businesses which hire illegals, which constitute the bigger problem we are facing in this country. It's larger in that it involves state drivers licenses, education tuition costs, providing them with housing, the healthcare mandate, all of which the vast majority is on the taxpayer's dime (especially if they have trouble maintaining work)
To reiterate my point the Federal Government needs to have penalties in place that will put an end to those states which allow cities that harbor illegals from the knowledge of ICE agents to flourish, If you harbor illegals, if you stand in the way of deportation enforcement efforts, you will have your Federal Funding cut as a consequence of your decision. If these cities are indeed encouraging the migration of illegals from Mexico into their states, we will soon see how high a price tag they are willing to pay for placing themselves in the way of enforcing our immigration laws. Why would finding the funds needed to strengthen our southern border be such an issue? Mexico may be off the hook on this one. Of course if these illegals were deported, imagine how much the taxpayers of each state would actually save in not providing these illegals with so many taxpayer benefits. Finally fully enforcing our current federal immigration laws on a national level without hindrance, and tightening up our borders would be one way to have this country back on the right course. That alone would get my support and vote.
Or we could go back to the Carter and Reagan eras in which people convicted of helping illegal immigrants to be here illegally--that would include employers, the equivalent of sanctuary cities, citizens providing transportation and ways to conceal the illegality--would be subject to fine and possibly imprisonment. That was not a policy allowing illegals to be treated inhumanely, but nobody was to be allowed to be here with impunity. But then Reagan granted amnesty to the estimated 3 million illegals in the country at that time on the promise of congress to secure the border and deal severely with those who broke our laws. The illegals got their amnestry but the rest never happened. Year by year, law enforcement was more and more lax.
It was like putting a huge flashing neon sign over America: "Ya'll come and lay low for a bit and we will let you stay." The immigration laws and system for admission of legal immigrants have been bypassed entirely by the estimated 12 to 20 million illegals in the country now.
ShaklesOfBigGov
Restore the Republic
Here is a current map entailing places where Sanctuary cities exist. As you can readily observe many red states have some too.
I was surprised you didn't know that.
Frankly, though. The key issue is enforcing immigration laws does not fall with the purview of state jurisdictions.
Perhaps you are just simply ignorant of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the so-called "Sanctuary cities phenomenon:
STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In the well-known Arizona v. US (11-182), President Obama challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (S.B. 1070). Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 as an anti-illegal immigration measure, with four key provisions at issue before the Court.
With Chief Justice Roberts as the swing-vote, the 5-3 Court rejected three of the provisions for violating the Supremacy Clause. First, the Court reaffirmed that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the federal government. Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens. This is what preempted Section 3, which would have required aliens to carry legal immigration papers at all times. Third, the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work, preempting Section 5(C). Fourth, the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance. This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term Highlights
Yes I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions. That is, of course, if the map accurately depicts the harboring of illegals from the knowledge of those who seek to enforce immigration in Washington DC. Also, thanks for supporting my argument which states that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state matter, as states can't act on their own behalf with regard to illegal immigration policy. You also gave validity that it is in fact sanctuary cities, and not corporate businesses which hire illegals, which constitute the bigger problem we are facing in this country. It's larger in that it involves state drivers licenses, education tuition costs, providing them with housing, the healthcare mandate, all of which the vast majority is on the taxpayer's dime (especially if they have trouble maintaining work)
To reiterate my point the Federal Government needs to have penalties in place that will put an end to those states which allow cities that harbor illegals from the knowledge of ICE agents to flourish, If you harbor illegals, if you stand in the way of deportation enforcement efforts, you will have your Federal Funding cut as a consequence of your decision. If these cities are indeed encouraging the migration of illegals from Mexico into their states, we will soon see how high a price tag they are willing to pay for placing themselves in the way of enforcing our immigration laws. Why would finding the funds needed to strengthen our southern border be such an issue? Mexico may be off the hook on this one. Of course if these illegals were deported, imagine how much the taxpayers of each state would actually save in not providing these illegals with so many taxpayer benefits. Finally fully enforcing our current federal immigration laws on a national level without hindrance, and tightening up our borders would be one way to have this country back on the right course. That alone would get my support and vote.
Or we could go back to the Carter and Reagan eras in which people convicted of helping illegal immigrants to be here illegally--that would include employers, the equivalent of sanctuary cities, citizens providing transportation and ways to conceal the illegality--would be subject to fine and possibly imprisonment. That was not a policy allowing illegals to be treated inhumanely, but nobody was to be allowed to be here with impunity. But then Reagan granted amnesty to the estimated 3 million illegals in the country at that time on the promise of congress to secure the border and deal severely with those who broke our laws. The illegals got their amnestry but the rest never happened. Year by year, law enforcement was more and more lax.
It was like putting a huge flashing neon sign over America: "Ya'll come and lay low for a bit and we will let you stay." The immigration laws and system for admission of legal immigrants have been bypassed entirely by the estimated 12 to 20 million illegals in the country now.
I never approved of President Reagan granting amnesty to over 3 million illegals, because it never solved the problem that got this nation here in the first place. If anything amnesty, or a quick pathway to citizenship, only encourages future illegals and undermines our immigration laws by providing a reason not to respect them.
I agree with implementing stronger language of enforcement, however imprisionment with the current overcrowding that exists due to drug enforcement is not the answer.
First offense - For citizens who are found providing transportation and ways to conceal the illegality of immigrants, $10,000 fine per illegal that ties them through a federal investigation. Where law enforcement finds a citizen with the illegal in an effort to conceal his or her immigration status, that citizen at the moment of arrest is blacklisted from voting for a period of 8 years.
Second offense - if convicted, the citizen loses his US citizenship without appeal, and is himself deported out of the country.
For a corporation involved in hiring illegals, since businesses usually believe they can simply close down and reopen under another name to escape fines or bankruptcy cases, up to 10 executives to include the CEO will have the offense tied to their "personal" record with $30,000 fine per illegal not to exceed $500,000. Also tied to their personal record will be a 20 year ban from conducting business on a government facility. Second offense will carry a fine up to $1 million and complete ban from entering any government connected facility.
States that approve of sanctuary cities, make efforts to conceal an illegal's identity from ICE, or otherwise place themselves in a position that hinders Federal immigration enforcement, will have their Federal Funding cut until an internal investigation reveals such harboring of illegals no longer exists.
Here is a current map entailing places where Sanctuary cities exist. As you can readily observe many red states have some too.
I was surprised you didn't know that.
Frankly, though. The key issue is enforcing immigration laws does not fall with the purview of state jurisdictions.
Perhaps you are just simply ignorant of the Supreme Courts decision regarding the so-called "Sanctuary cities phenomenon:
STATE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
In the well-known Arizona v. US (11-182), President Obama challenged Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 (S.B. 1070). Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 as an anti-illegal immigration measure, with four key provisions at issue before the Court.
With Chief Justice Roberts as the swing-vote, the 5-3 Court rejected three of the provisions for violating the Supremacy Clause. First, the Court reaffirmed that immigration policy is solely within the purview of the federal government. Second, the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens. This is what preempted Section 3, which would have required aliens to carry legal immigration papers at all times. Third, the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work, preempting Section 5(C). Fourth, the decision forbids state policies that would lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants who have committed crimes, unless the federal government explicitly asks for such assistance. This wide conclusion undermined Section 6, which directed state police to make warrantless arrests of anyone believed to have committed a crime that could lead to deportation.
Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term Highlights
Yes I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions. That is, of course, if the map accurately depicts the harboring of illegals from the knowledge of those who seek to enforce immigration in Washington DC. Also, thanks for supporting my argument which states that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state matter, as states can't act on their own behalf with regard to illegal immigration policy. You also gave validity that it is in fact sanctuary cities, and not corporate businesses which hire illegals, which constitute the bigger problem we are facing in this country. It's larger in that it involves state drivers licenses, education tuition costs, providing them with housing, the healthcare mandate, all of which the vast majority is on the taxpayer's dime (especially if they have trouble maintaining work)
To reiterate my point the Federal Government needs to have penalties in place that will put an end to those states which allow cities that harbor illegals from the knowledge of ICE agents to flourish, If you harbor illegals, if you stand in the way of deportation enforcement efforts, you will have your Federal Funding cut as a consequence of your decision. If these cities are indeed encouraging the migration of illegals from Mexico into their states, we will soon see how high a price tag they are willing to pay for placing themselves in the way of enforcing our immigration laws. Why would finding the funds needed to strengthen our southern border be such an issue? Mexico may be off the hook on this one. Of course if these illegals were deported, imagine how much the taxpayers of each state would actually save in not providing these illegals with so many taxpayer benefits. Finally fully enforcing our current federal immigration laws on a national level without hindrance, and tightening up our borders would be one way to have this country back on the right course. That alone would get my support and vote.
Or we could go back to the Carter and Reagan eras in which people convicted of helping illegal immigrants to be here illegally--that would include employers, the equivalent of sanctuary cities, citizens providing transportation and ways to conceal the illegality--would be subject to fine and possibly imprisonment. That was not a policy allowing illegals to be treated inhumanely, but nobody was to be allowed to be here with impunity. But then Reagan granted amnesty to the estimated 3 million illegals in the country at that time on the promise of congress to secure the border and deal severely with those who broke our laws. The illegals got their amnestry but the rest never happened. Year by year, law enforcement was more and more lax.
It was like putting a huge flashing neon sign over America: "Ya'll come and lay low for a bit and we will let you stay." The immigration laws and system for admission of legal immigrants have been bypassed entirely by the estimated 12 to 20 million illegals in the country now.
I never approved of President Reagan granting amnesty to over 3 million illegals, because it never solved the problem that got this nation here in the first place. If anything amnesty, or a quick pathway to citizenship, only encourages future illegals and undermines our immigration laws by providing a reason not to respect them.
I agree with implementing stronger language of enforcement, however imprisionment with the current overcrowding that exists due to drug enforcement is not the answer.
First offense - For citizens who are found providing transportation and ways to conceal the illegality of immigrants, $10,000 fine per illegal that ties them through a federal investigation. Where law enforcement finds a citizen with the illegal in an effort to conceal his or her immigration status, that citizen at the moment of arrest is blacklisted from voting for a period of 8 years.
Second offense - if convicted, the citizen loses his US citizenship without appeal, and is himself deported out of the country.
For a corporation involved in hiring illegals, since businesses usually believe they can simply close down and reopen under another name to escape fines or bankruptcy cases, up to 10 executives to include the CEO will have the offense tied to their "personal" record with $30,000 fine per illegal not to exceed $500,000. Also tied to their personal record will be a 20 year ban from conducting business on a government facility. Second offense will carry a fine up to $1 million and complete ban from entering any government connected facility.
States that approve of sanctuary cities, make efforts to conceal an illegal's identity from ICE, or otherwise place themselves in a position that hinders Federal immigration enforcement, will have their Federal Funding cut until an internal investigation reveals such harboring of illegals no longer exists.
As I would hope all federal funding other than that involving shared infrastructure and resources would eventually be phased out, I would assess hefty fines to sanctuary cities if evidence showed that their governments were refusing to enforce the law or had set up their own amnesty programs. And the only salaries that could be impacted would be those in leadership and management positions. Were that the law, it would be much less attractive for cities, towns, and villages to provide sanctuary to illegals anywhere. And the local citizens who might be stuck with additional taxes to cover the fine would be much more involved in that process.
Ray From Cleveland
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2015
- 97,215
- 37,449
- 2,290
I like my idea the best. Anybody caught here illegally faces a minimum five year prison sentence. You won't need any wall, you won't need anymore border enforcement, you won't need to crack down on employers either. Most will self-deport and get the hell out of this country as quick as possible.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Anti-ICE protesters try to break into ICE facility, ICE Agents bum rush them- Started by theHawk
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
