Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!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.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yo've certainly taken the football and ran with it. But you and your RW buddies are running in the wrong direction.
The most difficult obstruction to bypass for your ship of fools is the Supreme Court decision: Arizona vs USA. Please take the time to read it.
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!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.
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.
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.
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.
s 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.
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.And the local citizens who might be stuck with additional taxes to cover the fine would be much more involved in that process.
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.
Yo've certainly taken the football and ran with it. But you and your RW buddies are running in the wrong direction.
The most difficult obstruction to bypass for your ship of fools is the Supreme Court decision: Arizona vs USA. Please take the time to read it.
Arizona was about a state wanting to take the federal law of immigration into their own hands, much like sanctuary cities and those states which harbor illegals and stand in the way of enforcement of FEDERAL law.
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!
Nope. A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried.
You missed the point entirely. Not many will go to prison. If you were in another country illegally, and they passed a law like that, would you come back to the US or go to prison for five years? Very few would choose prison over freedom no matter where that freedom exists. It would work just like Arizona that you highlighted. When they passed their law (before ears stopped them) the illegals got out of that state as fast as you could throw a rock.
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!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.
Instead of a fast track to citizenship for votes, there is the fast track to deportation which supports and exercises the right to a speedy trial.
Don't come in here trying to blame corporations for this mess while supporting sanctuary cities. We know liberals are not for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders, they are the enablers which undermines the law.
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.
Yo've certainly taken the football and ran with it. But you and your RW buddies are running in the wrong direction.
The most difficult obstruction to bypass for your ship of fools is the Supreme Court decision: Arizona vs USA. Please take the time to read it.
Arizona was about a state wanting to take the federal law of immigration into their own hands, much like sanctuary cities and those states which harbor illegals and stand in the way of enforcement of FEDERAL law.
If you read Arizona vs USA, you didn't comprehend it very well. The state of Arizona was taking YOUR SIDE. The state legislature felt the feds weren't doing enough to halt the tide of illegal immigrants to their state so they took the initiative. The Supreme Court shot that initiative down. And here is why:
The Sanctuary Movement is getting a foul rap here. Don't confuse the Sanctuary Movement with so-called sanctuary cities. The SM is still the only viable hope for those who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time, state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is sufficient to suspect that person is an illegal. However, having no I.D. is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine if a person is illegal, which, in effect, burns up local and state resources including room and board expenses.
Something else you might not know: There are time limits on how long a person an be detained without a warrant. If I remember correctly it is something like 24 hrs. Holding an undocumented worker past that time could result in a lawsuit if he or she turns out to be a refugee or have legal status. If the undocumented worker has not committed a crime, the warrant would have to come from the feds within that 24 hrs time frame. But the kicker is that mere suspicion followed by detention has been undermined by Arizona vs USA.
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!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.
Instead of a fast track to citizenship for votes, there is the fast track to deportation which supports and exercises the right to a speedy trial.
Don't come in here trying to blame corporations for this mess while supporting sanctuary cities. We know liberals are not for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders, they are the enablers which undermines the law.
Illegals cannot vote nor are they placed in front of people who are here legally seeking citizenship. And who is WE? Your ambiguous "WE" knows liberals are NOT for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders? And just how does "We" know this?
I know liberals and conservatives who agree with you on this issue and I know others of both groups who don't.
Illegals cannot vote nor are they placed in front of people who are here legally seeking citizenship. And who is WE? Your ambiguous "WE" knows liberals are NOT for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders? And just how does "We" know this?
I know liberals and conservatives who agree with you on this issue and I know others of both groups who don't.
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.
Yo've certainly taken the football and ran with it. But you and your RW buddies are running in the wrong direction.
The most difficult obstruction to bypass for your ship of fools is the Supreme Court decision: Arizona vs USA. Please take the time to read it.
Arizona was about a state wanting to take the federal law of immigration into their own hands, much like sanctuary cities and those states which harbor illegals and stand in the way of enforcement of FEDERAL law.
If you read Arizona vs USA, you didn't comprehend it very well. The state of Arizona was taking YOUR SIDE. The state legislature felt the feds weren't doing enough to halt the tide of illegal immigrants to their state so they took the initiative. The Supreme Court shot that initiative down. And here is why:
The Sanctuary Movement is getting a foul rap here. Don't confuse the Sanctuary Movement with so-called sanctuary cities. The SM is still the only viable hope for those who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time, state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is sufficient to suspect that person is an illegal. However, having no I.D. is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine if a person is illegal, which, in effect, burns up local and state resources including room and board expenses.
Something else you might not know: There are time limits on how long a person an be detained without a warrant. If I remember correctly it is something like 24 hrs. Holding an undocumented worker past that time could result in a lawsuit if he or she turns out to be a refugee or have legal status. If the undocumented worker has not committed a crime, the warrant would have to come from the feds within that 24 hrs time frame. But the kicker is that mere suspicion followed by detention has been undermined by Arizona vs USA.
We are still talking about a STATE taking on a position of enforcement it was not given nor do they have the resources available to do. This is why the Federal government has ICE agents tasked with doing that job under the authority of those in Washington DC, not the state. I didn't misinterpret the issue at all, you simply don't know what the Federal policy of our immigration laws are.
This is why the Federal government has ICE agents tasked with doing that job under the authority of those in Washington DC, not the state.
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!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.
Instead of a fast track to citizenship for votes, there is the fast track to deportation which supports and exercises the right to a speedy trial.
Don't come in here trying to blame corporations for this mess while supporting sanctuary cities. We know liberals are not for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders, they are the enablers which undermines the law.
Illegals cannot vote nor are they placed in front of people who are here legally seeking citizenship. And who is WE? Your ambiguous "WE" knows liberals are NOT for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders? And just how does "We" know this?
I know liberals and conservatives who agree with you on this issue and I know others of both groups who don't.
If they are given a pathway of citizenship guarantee as a campaign promise from Democrats, supporters of this new effort and symathizers of illegals will give Hillary their vote. Once a pathway to citizenship is followed through by Democrats, note that no solution to the illegal immigration issue back at our borders were ever addressed nor provided a solution, those new citizens will then support Democrats for their kind willingness to look the other way on Federal Immigration Laws and deportation. Damn, anyone with a little common sense can see where this will all lead. Why can't you?
Shakles said:]Once a pathway to citizenship is followed through by Democrats, note that no solution to the illegal immigration issue back at our borders were ever addressed nor provided a solution, those new citizens will then support Democrats for their kind willingness to look the other way on Federal Immigration Laws and deportation.
Your imagination is running away with you. I have never heard a campaign promise from a Democrat presidential candidate suggesting a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. If you have, I want to know who and when they said it.
Illegals cannot vote nor are they placed in front of people who are here legally seeking citizenship. And who is WE? Your ambiguous "WE" knows liberals are NOT for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders? And just how does "We" know this?
I know liberals and conservatives who agree with you on this issue and I know others of both groups who don't.
Step one for liberals is to get these people into this country. Step two is that when able (through leadership or courts) to pass an executive order to allow them to vote.
Through some of their success in fighting against Voter-ID, giving illegals drivers licenses, being able to vote from home by mail, yes, illegals can slip through the cracks and vote. If dead people can do it, why not illegals?
‘Radical idea’ to let illegals vote in NYC
Non-American citizen arrested for voting in Texas -- FIVE times - faces up to 20 years
ALERT: California just signed bill AUTOMATICALLY registering this group to VOTE - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland
License, ID card policies stir concerns over illegal immigrants voting | Fox News
Your imagination is running away with you. I have never heard a campaign promise from a Democrat presidential candidate suggesting a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. If you have, I want to know who and when they said it.
You're welcome
Where was that fake newscast made, in somebody's basement? Yes it was Hillary speaking but we don't get to hear the whole speech or the sentence just before saying she will "fight" for a pathway to citizens ship for the people in attendance.
We already have crowding and inadequate prison facilities that can barely handle the 2 million inmates we have now. If there are over 11 million illegals cavorting about and we catch them all, where the hell are we going to put them? You haven't thought this through have you? If you had you would consider the immense cost to the tax payer of housing and feeding millions of prisoners. Admit it, your plan needs an overhaul!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.
Instead of a fast track to citizenship for votes, there is the fast track to deportation which supports and exercises the right to a speedy trial.
Don't come in here trying to blame corporations for this mess while supporting sanctuary cities. We know liberals are not for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders, they are the enablers which undermines the law.
Illegals cannot vote nor are they placed in front of people who are here legally seeking citizenship. And who is WE? Your ambiguous "WE" knows liberals are NOT for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders? And just how does "We" know this?
I know liberals and conservatives who agree with you on this issue and I know others of both groups who don't.
If they are given a pathway of citizenship guarantee as a campaign promise from Democrats, supporters of this new effort and symathizers of illegals will give Hillary their vote. Once a pathway to citizenship is followed through by Democrats, note that no solution to the illegal immigration issue back at our borders were ever addressed nor provided a solution, those new citizens will then support Democrats for their kind willingness to look the other way on Federal Immigration Laws and deportation. Damn, anyone with a little common sense can see where this will all lead. Why can't you?
Your imagination is running away with you. I have never heard a campaign promise from a Democrat presidential candidate suggesting a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. If you have, I want to know who and when they said it.
Look, bud, you are getting sillier with every post. I think you were just speculating and blowing hot air when you said this: "
Illegals cannot vote nor are they placed in front of people who are here legally seeking citizenship. And who is WE? Your ambiguous "WE" knows liberals are NOT for strict enforcement of immigration laws and our nation's borders? And just how does "We" know this?
I know liberals and conservatives who agree with you on this issue and I know others of both groups who don't.
Step one for liberals is to get these people into this country. Step two is that when able (through leadership or courts) to pass an executive order to allow them to vote.
Through some of their success in fighting against Voter-ID, giving illegals drivers licenses, being able to vote from home by mail, yes, illegals can slip through the cracks and vote. If dead people can do it, why not illegals?
‘Radical idea’ to let illegals vote in NYC
Non-American citizen arrested for voting in Texas -- FIVE times - faces up to 20 years
ALERT: California just signed bill AUTOMATICALLY registering this group to VOTE - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com
Massive Non-Citizen Voting Uncovered in Maryland
License, ID card policies stir concerns over illegal immigrants voting | Fox News
The Virginia Voters Alliance? Ok, 2 years ago they filed a lawsuit alleging non us citizens were voting I want to see how this case unravels. What happened? Do you khow the results?
Here are links I found disavowing your claims of widespread voter fraud1
Here's how rare in-person voter fraud is - The Washington Post
Study Finds No Evidence of Widespread Voter Fraud - NBC News
Myth of Voter Fraud | Brennan Center for Justice
Voter Fraud: It's Real, But Rare - ABC News
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.
Yo've certainly taken the football and ran with it. But you and your RW buddies are running in the wrong direction.
The most difficult obstruction to bypass for your ship of fools is the Supreme Court decision: Arizona vs USA. Please take the time to read it.
Arizona was about a state wanting to take the federal law of immigration into their own hands, much like sanctuary cities and those states which harbor illegals and stand in the way of enforcement of FEDERAL law.
If you read Arizona vs USA, you didn't comprehend it very well. The state of Arizona was taking YOUR SIDE. The state legislature felt the feds weren't doing enough to halt the tide of illegal immigrants to their state so they took the initiative. The Supreme Court shot that initiative down. And here is why:
The Sanctuary Movement is getting a foul rap here. Don't confuse the Sanctuary Movement with so-called sanctuary cities. The SM is still the only viable hope for those who flee strife, persecution and civil war in their home countries pursuant to seeking asylum in the USA. It was not designed to protect people who are just coming over for jobs from countries that are not hostile to them. But at the same time, state and local governments run the risk of violating the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution if they detain people who are undocumented but haven’t committed any crime without warrants. Undocumented means you don’t have an I.D. on you. That isn't a crime but is sufficient to suspect that person is an illegal. However, having no I.D. is not proof that they are. And it could take days or even weeks to determine if a person is illegal, which, in effect, burns up local and state resources including room and board expenses.
Something else you might not know: There are time limits on how long a person an be detained without a warrant. If I remember correctly it is something like 24 hrs. Holding an undocumented worker past that time could result in a lawsuit if he or she turns out to be a refugee or have legal status. If the undocumented worker has not committed a crime, the warrant would have to come from the feds within that 24 hrs time frame. But the kicker is that mere suspicion followed by detention has been undermined by Arizona vs USA.
We are still talking about a STATE taking on a position of enforcement it was not given nor do they have the resources available to do. This is why the Federal government has ICE agents tasked with doing that job under the authority of those in Washington DC, not the state. I didn't misinterpret the issue at all, you simply don't know what the Federal policy of our immigration laws are.
This is why the Federal government has ICE agents tasked with doing that job under the authority of those in Washington DC, not the state.
If we agree on who has the responsibility to enforce immigration laws, what is your argument? You have been whining about sanctuary cites harboring illegal aliens for a while now. Yet, you want the cops of state and local municipalities to actively get involved in detaining people who fit the profile, determine if they are undocumented, detain them without a warrant until ICE arrives… Am I correct? Is that the way you see it?
