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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Shakles said:
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.
