Trump wants blacks to gamble on his "what the hell do you have to lose"

[JQPublic1]

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?

My argument has always been about stricter Federal enforcement of our immigration laws, perhaps you can be so kind as to point out where I EVER said that it's the job of cops and local enforcement over ICE agents. Time and again I said it's a FEDERAL and not a STATE issue, what part of that did you not understand?

If there is something I don’t understand it is your idiocy. You are are correct in observing that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state issue but you undermine that premise by saying shit like this:

Sanctuary cities and not reporting illegal immigrants is what encourages illegals to come into this country.

THEN, you said this"

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.

Now , It appears that you are denying you said sanctuary cities are harboring illegal aliens by failing to respect and uphold federal immigration laws.


And just how does the state or city government identify who is or is not an illegal alien without risking violations of the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution? And I wonder how you want states or sanctuary cities uphold federal law when they don’t have the authority to do so?


The Sanctuary MOVEMENT vs Sanctuary Cities:


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.



A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an illegal alien in the country in which they are currently living. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce national immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.[1]

If liberal states want to keep their funding, they can choose to put an end to sanctuary cities.

What about the red states that have them, you stupid shit? I have had just about enough of you.

You can’’tg even comprehend what is right in front of you. If you don’t trust the map at least be resourceful enough to check somewhere else and be man enough to admit you're wrong..


I took my precious time to post excerpts from Arizona vs USA pertinent towhee some sanctuary cities don’t ”UPHOLD” federal immigration laws: read and heed:

the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens

the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work

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.

es I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions.

But you don't mention the red states, including Texas with sanctuary cities you disingenuous bahs-turd.

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

That statement is just plain stupid. Unless you can prove otherwise the definition of sanctuary cities I posted is king. Words like “harbor” are inappropriate. The cops in sanctuary cities have a don't ask don’t tell approach. That isn’t harboring because they don’t know who the illegal aliens are until they commit a crime. Then they do report them.

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.

A quick path to US citizenship isn’t possible. Show me where that has ever occurred in the last 10 years except with documented non citizens who join the area forces.

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.

Can you prove states are concerning an illegals identity from ICE for are hindering federal immigration enforcement? You can’t so STFU!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

My argument has always been about stricter Federal enforcement of our immigration laws, perhaps you can be so kind as to point out where I EVER said that it's the job of cops and local enforcement over ICE agents. Time and again I said it's a FEDERAL and not a STATE issue, what part of that did you not understand?

If there is something I don’t understand it is your idiocy. You are are correct in observing that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state issue but you undermine that premise by saying shit like this:

Sanctuary cities and not reporting illegal immigrants is what encourages illegals to come into this country.

THEN, you said this"

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.

Now , It appears that you are denying you said sanctuary cities are harboring illegal aliens by failing to respect and uphold federal immigration laws.


And just how does the state or city government identify who is or is not an illegal alien without risking violations of the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution? And I wonder how you want states or sanctuary cities uphold federal law when they don’t have the authority to do so?


The Sanctuary MOVEMENT vs Sanctuary Cities:


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.



A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an illegal alien in the country in which they are currently living. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce national immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.[1]

If liberal states want to keep their funding, they can choose to put an end to sanctuary cities.

What about the red states that have them, you stupid shit? I have had just about enough of you.

You can’’tg even comprehend what is right in front of you. If you don’t trust the map at least be resourceful enough to check somewhere else and be man enough to admit you're wrong..


I took my precious time to post excerpts from Arizona vs USA pertinent towhee some sanctuary cities don’t ”UPHOLD” federal immigration laws: read and heed:

the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens

the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work

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.

es I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions.

But you don't mention the red states, including Texas with sanctuary cities you disingenuous bahs-turd.

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

That statement is just plain stupid. Unless you can prove otherwise the definition of sanctuary cities I posted is king. Words like “harbor” are inappropriate. The cops in sanctuary cities have a don't ask don’t tell approach. That isn’t harboring because they don’t know who the illegal aliens are until they commit a crime. Then they do report them.

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.

A quick path to US citizenship isn’t possible. Show me where that has ever occurred in the last 10 years except with documented non citizens who join the area forces.

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.

Can you prove states are concerning an illegals identity from ICE for are hindering federal immigration enforcement? You can’t so STFU!

JCPublic1 to put it bluntly ... If you have shown me you have at least READ the law, you would have been able to provide "clear wording" as to where it allows sanctuary cities the authority to harbor illegals. Rather, it's quite obvious to everyone here that you simply don't know what you are talking about on the issue, so you continue to be ignorant rather than educated on the subject and ramble on with the same boring crap.

As I've said, If you harbor illegals, keep the knowledge of an illegal from the Federal Givernment (ICE) are violating Federal Law. Arizona doesn't have the authority as a state to take he law into their own hands, and neither have you provided one for sanctuary cities.

 

[Jroc]

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.

Although the moderator describes the audience as undocumented hispanic workers he doesn't specific that they are "illegal" immigrants. Those folks could have been refugees from South America or people with Hi-B visas. Do you know?

It came out of her own mouth you idiot "path to citizenship for you and your illegal families"..Are you in denial?...Are you waiting for talking points you heard her say it....Poor boy you don't believe our own ears because nobody told you what to say in response

“We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship,” Clinton said. “Now this is where I differ from everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistake: today not a single Republican candidate announced or potential is clearly or consistently supporting a path to citizenship – not one.”

“When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”

Clinton again positioned a liberal cause as a family and economic issue, as she has on women’s rights. But she also positioned herself to the left of even Obama on immigration, whose orders have led to non-stop conservative ire and legal challenges but would still allow for the deportation of those brought illegally to the country as children – so-called “dreamers”.

Hillary Clinton pushes 'every candidate' (and Obama) to the left on immigration


Watch it again..did you see Hillary's comments?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

On March 26, 2015, at the request of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had turned Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant.[25] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. As a sanctuary city, however, which limits cooperation with ICE only to cases where active charges against the immigrant are identified, San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.[26]

Shooting of Kathryn Steinle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

On March 26, 2015, at the request of the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP) had turned Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities for an outstanding drug warrant.[25] U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had issued a detainer for Sanchez requesting that he be kept in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. As a sanctuary city, however, which limits cooperation with ICE only to cases where active charges against the immigrant are identified, San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.[26]

Shooting of Kathryn Steinle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.

The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. He was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred. ICE had indeed asked them to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before.

ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the normal please time. Admittedly, that release seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Although the moderator describes the audience as undocumented hispanic workers he doesn't specific that they are "illegal" immigrants. Those folks could have been refugees from South America or people with Hi-B visas. Do you know?

It came out of her own mouth you idiot "path to citizenship for you and your illegal families"..Are you in denial?...Are you waiting for talking points you heard her say it....Poor boy you don't believe our own ears because nobody told you what to say in response

“We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship,” Clinton said. “Now this is where I differ from everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistake: today not a single Republican candidate announced or potential is clearly or consistently supporting a path to citizenship – not one.”

“When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”

Clinton again positioned a liberal cause as a family and economic issue, as she has on women’s rights. But she also positioned herself to the left of even Obama on immigration, whose orders have led to non-stop conservative ire and legal challenges but would still allow for the deportation of those brought illegally to the country as children – so-called “dreamers”.

Hillary Clinton pushes 'every candidate' (and Obama) to the left on immigration


Watch it again..did you see Hillary's comments?

Yeah I heard Hillary clearly. She said: "As president I will fight for a path to citizenship for you and your families." So what? Fighting for a "path" to citizenship can be interpreted many ways. One clue as to what she meant and who she was talking to is when she mentioned the Dreamers… apparently alluding to the bipartisan Dream Act. That puts the narrative in a new context. The people she was addressing were young folks who weren't born here but were brought here as babes. This is the only home they have ever known.
Hillary wasn't speaking on behalf of Democrats alone, she was simply rehashing the provisions in the bi-partisan Dream Act.

 

[JQPublic1]

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?

My argument has always been about stricter Federal enforcement of our immigration laws, perhaps you can be so kind as to point out where I EVER said that it's the job of cops and local enforcement over ICE agents. Time and again I said it's a FEDERAL and not a STATE issue, what part of that did you not understand?

If there is something I don’t understand it is your idiocy. You are are correct in observing that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state issue but you undermine that premise by saying shit like this:

Sanctuary cities and not reporting illegal immigrants is what encourages illegals to come into this country.

THEN, you said this"

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.

Now , It appears that you are denying you said sanctuary cities are harboring illegal aliens by failing to respect and uphold federal immigration laws.


And just how does the state or city government identify who is or is not an illegal alien without risking violations of the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution? And I wonder how you want states or sanctuary cities uphold federal law when they don’t have the authority to do so?


The Sanctuary MOVEMENT vs Sanctuary Cities:


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.



A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an illegal alien in the country in which they are currently living. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce national immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.[1]

If liberal states want to keep their funding, they can choose to put an end to sanctuary cities.

What about the red states that have them, you stupid shit? I have had just about enough of you.

You can’’tg even comprehend what is right in front of you. If you don’t trust the map at least be resourceful enough to check somewhere else and be man enough to admit you're wrong..


I took my precious time to post excerpts from Arizona vs USA pertinent towhee some sanctuary cities don’t ”UPHOLD” federal immigration laws: read and heed:

the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens

the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work

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.

es I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions.

But you don't mention the red states, including Texas with sanctuary cities you disingenuous bahs-turd.

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

That statement is just plain stupid. Unless you can prove otherwise the definition of sanctuary cities I posted is king. Words like “harbor” are inappropriate. The cops in sanctuary cities have a don't ask don’t tell approach. That isn’t harboring because they don’t know who the illegal aliens are until they commit a crime. Then they do report them.

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.

A quick path to US citizenship isn’t possible. Show me where that has ever occurred in the last 10 years except with documented non citizens who join the area forces.

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.

Can you prove states are concerning an illegals identity from ICE for are hindering federal immigration enforcement? You can’t so STFU!

JCPublic1 to put it bluntly ... If you have shown me you have at least READ the law, you would have been able to provide "clear wording" as to where it allows sanctuary cities the authority to harbor illegals. Rather, it's quite obvious to everyone here that you simply don't know what you are talking about on the issue, so you continue to be ignorant rather than educated on the subject and ramble on with the same boring crap.

As I've said, If you harbor illegals, keep the knowledge of an illegal from the Federal Givernment (ICE) are violating Federal Law. Arizona doesn't have the authority as a state to take he law into their own hands, and neither have you provided one for sanctuary cities.

You can put it anyway you wish but you can't ignore the results of Arizona vs USA. That is the law. Are you referring to a law other than THAT? You have made allegations of harboring illegals by sanctuary cities but you have not substantiated that claim as fact.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.

The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. He was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred. ICE had indeed asked them to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before.

ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the normal please time. Admittedly, that release seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?

Allow me to reiterate:

As a sanctuary city, however, which limits cooperation with ICE only to cases where active charges against the immigrant are identified.

So what we have learned here is that sanctuary cities do preclude ICE's ability to take illegals into custody unless they have an active warrant or charge against them. And this is why sanctuary cities need to be defunded by the federal government as Trump has suggested. Kate's law was voted down by Democrats which would have stopped situations like this from happening in the future. Democrats love illegals and could care less about the crime and dugs they bring into this country. All they care about is winning the Hispanic vote and hopefully making it legal for those illegals to vote down the road.

We have a party that wants to protect the American people and a party that wants to harm us. For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would support a party that wants the latter.

 

[JQPublic1]

San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.

The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. He was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred. ICE had indeed asked them to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before.

ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the normal please time. Admittedly, that release seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?

Allow me to reiterate:

As a sanctuary city, however, which limits cooperation with ICE only to cases where active charges against the immigrant are identified.

So what we have learned here is that sanctuary cities do preclude ICE's ability to take illegals into custody unless they have an active warrant or charge against them. And this is why sanctuary cities need to be defunded by the federal government as Trump has suggested. Kate's law was voted down by Democrats which would have stopped situations like this from happening in the future. Democrats love illegals and could care less about the crime and dugs they bring into this country. All they care about is winning the Hispanic vote and hopefully making it legal for those illegals to vote down the road.

We have a party that wants to protect the American people and a party that wants to harm us. For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would support a party that wants the latter.

I see the source of your confusion. n your emboldened sentence, two words identify your interpretative error: limits cooperation.
Those two words do NOT exist in the link you provided. You added them for effect but those two words are not applicable to the principles of so-called sanctuary cities. Your own link says:

"The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce national immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status."

That doesn't preclude or limit cooperation with ICE. That is setting priorities on how to manage police resources and funds. I don't like it either but that is the way it is. And After the SCOTUS put restrictions on states and local cops in matters of immigration and especially the handling and detention of undocumented workers who have NOT committed a crime.. that "limited cooperation" you are so focused on, can be better understood.


Look, this is off topic and has nothing to do with the op. I'll end my input here and return to the focus of the op. Do as you wish.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

My argument has always been about stricter Federal enforcement of our immigration laws, perhaps you can be so kind as to point out where I EVER said that it's the job of cops and local enforcement over ICE agents. Time and again I said it's a FEDERAL and not a STATE issue, what part of that did you not understand?

If there is something I don’t understand it is your idiocy. You are are correct in observing that immigration is a FEDERAL and not a state issue but you undermine that premise by saying shit like this:

Sanctuary cities and not reporting illegal immigrants is what encourages illegals to come into this country.

THEN, you said this"

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.

Now , It appears that you are denying you said sanctuary cities are harboring illegal aliens by failing to respect and uphold federal immigration laws.


And just how does the state or city government identify who is or is not an illegal alien without risking violations of the 4th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution? And I wonder how you want states or sanctuary cities uphold federal law when they don’t have the authority to do so?


The Sanctuary MOVEMENT vs Sanctuary Cities:


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.



A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that adopts local policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an illegal alien in the country in which they are currently living. These practices can be by law (de jure) or they can be by habit (de facto). The term generally applies to cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce national immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about an individual's immigration status. The designation has no legal meaning.[1]

If liberal states want to keep their funding, they can choose to put an end to sanctuary cities.

What about the red states that have them, you stupid shit? I have had just about enough of you.

You can’’tg even comprehend what is right in front of you. If you don’t trust the map at least be resourceful enough to check somewhere else and be man enough to admit you're wrong..


I took my precious time to post excerpts from Arizona vs USA pertinent towhee some sanctuary cities don’t ”UPHOLD” federal immigration laws: read and heed:

the Court made clear that states are barred from adopting a state-level program requiring undocumented immigrants to report as non-citizens

the Court concluded that states may not make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or even apply for work

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.

es I can see the vast majority of blue states which stands behind this issue, mainly the northeast, northwest, and Ohio regions.

But you don't mention the red states, including Texas with sanctuary cities you disingenuous bahs-turd.

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

That statement is just plain stupid. Unless you can prove otherwise the definition of sanctuary cities I posted is king. Words like “harbor” are inappropriate. The cops in sanctuary cities have a don't ask don’t tell approach. That isn’t harboring because they don’t know who the illegal aliens are until they commit a crime. Then they do report them.

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.

A quick path to US citizenship isn’t possible. Show me where that has ever occurred in the last 10 years except with documented non citizens who join the area forces.

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.

Can you prove states are concerning an illegals identity from ICE for are hindering federal immigration enforcement? You can’t so STFU!

JCPublic1 to put it bluntly ... If you have shown me you have at least READ the law, you would have been able to provide "clear wording" as to where it allows sanctuary cities the authority to harbor illegals. Rather, it's quite obvious to everyone here that you simply don't know what you are talking about on the issue, so you continue to be ignorant rather than educated on the subject and ramble on with the same boring crap.

As I've said, If you harbor illegals, keep the knowledge of an illegal from the Federal Givernment (ICE) are violating Federal Law. Arizona doesn't have the authority as a state to take he law into their own hands, and neither have you provided one for sanctuary cities.

You can put it anyway you wish but you can't ignore the results of Arizona vs USA. That is the law. Are you referring to a law other than THAT? You have made allegations of harboring illegals by sanctuary cities but you have not substantiated that claim as fact.

I see you have decided to ignore the Federal law on immigration, otherwise you would have followed through with documented proof showing "where sanctuary cities have the authority to keep illegals from the knowledge of ICE under Federal Law". It's really was just a basic and simple question you could have answered. States are under the subject and authority of the Federal government, apparently in our last three discussions you haven't figured that out yet. States can not simply initiate their own policies on how to handle illegals whether it's through stronger local enforcement, or a state that makes its OWN decision to conceal an immigrant's legal status from ICE agents and the Federal Government. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between state laws and federal authoritative laws. What I found to be the most HILARIOUS statement you could have possibly made, was in naming the Supreme Court case Arizona vs USA. I mean the case in itself should have given away a .. HUGE ... clue and needed to have at least clicked that lightbulb on over your head, as to who has the greater authority under our system of government. You seriously can't be that much of an idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I see the source of your confusion. n your emboldened sentence, two words identify your interpretative error: limits cooperation.
Those two words do NOT exist in the link you provided. You added them for effect but those two words are not applicable to the principles of so-called sanctuary cities. Your own link says:

So you're saying my computer is adding words when I copy and paste? Maybe you better check that again, because that's all I did and even provided you the link where you can read word for word what I posted.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

San Francisco did not honor the detainer and released him, since they found no active warrant for his arrest.

The culprit is an incorrigible border crosser and petty criminal. He was released by the SFD months before the shooting occurred. ICE had indeed asked them to hold him for pickup but that really might not have prevented the shooting since Sanchez would likely have made his way back across the border like he had numerous times before.

ICE did not bother to get a warrant that would have made it legal to detain a person beyond the normal please time. Admittedly, that release seemingly bordered on an inane principle in this case since illegal immigrants do not have Constitutional rights. And I suspect the SFD knew Sanchez was a chronic fence jumper. That might have been an additional motive for not holding him since his previous deportations didn’t work…so what is the use?

Allow me to reiterate:

As a sanctuary city, however, which limits cooperation with ICE only to cases where active charges against the immigrant are identified.

So what we have learned here is that sanctuary cities do preclude ICE's ability to take illegals into custody unless they have an active warrant or charge against them. And this is why sanctuary cities need to be defunded by the federal government as Trump has suggested. Kate's law was voted down by Democrats which would have stopped situations like this from happening in the future. Democrats love illegals and could care less about the crime and dugs they bring into this country. All they care about is winning the Hispanic vote and hopefully making it legal for those illegals to vote down the road.

We have a party that wants to protect the American people and a party that wants to harm us. For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would support a party that wants the latter.

That doesn't preclude or limit cooperation with ICE. That is setting priorities on how to manage police resources and funds. I don't like it either but that is the way it is. And After the SCOTUS put restrictions on states and local cops in matters of immigration and especially the handling and detention of undocumented workers who have NOT committed a crime.. that "limited cooperation" you are so focused on, can be better understood.

The states authority is within the "boundary" of what the Federal Government and its laws, passed by Congress, ALLOWS for the state. The United States Supreme Court case only confirms that. A state can not set its own policies in how to handle illegal immigrants outside of FEDERAL LAW. A Federal Government that oversees the enforcement of immigration over all the states, if they are serious about enforcement, has all the funding and resources available to follow through with cracking down on those illegal immigrants in any state who are violating FEDERAL Law.

 

[Jroc]

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: "

]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.

That sentence is a LOOONNNNGGG non sequitur. Most illegal immigrants are coming here seeking temporary work or to send remittances back home. And Democrats are not looking the other way on federal immigration laws and deportation. How many times do I have to post that Obama has deported more illegal aliens than all of his predecessors combined. You are just living in a RW fantasy world where the truth is so distorted lies become reality.

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.

Although the moderator describes the audience as undocumented hispanic workers he doesn't specific that they are "illegal" immigrants. Those folks could have been refugees from South America or people with Hi-B visas. Do you know?

It came out of her own mouth you idiot "path to citizenship for you and your illegal families"..Are you in denial?...Are you waiting for talking points you heard her say it....Poor boy you don't believe our own ears because nobody told you what to say in response

“We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship,” Clinton said. “Now this is where I differ from everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistake: today not a single Republican candidate announced or potential is clearly or consistently supporting a path to citizenship – not one.”

“When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”

Clinton again positioned a liberal cause as a family and economic issue, as she has on women’s rights. But she also positioned herself to the left of even Obama on immigration, whose orders have led to non-stop conservative ire and legal challenges but would still allow for the deportation of those brought illegally to the country as children – so-called “dreamers”.

Hillary Clinton pushes 'every candidate' (and Obama) to the left on immigration


Watch it again..did you see Hillary's comments?

Yeah I heard Hillary clearly. She said: "As president I will fight for a path to citizenship for you and your families." So what? Fighting for a "path" to citizenship can be interpreted many ways. One clue as to what she meant and who she was talking to is when she mentioned the Dreamers… apparently alluding to the bipartisan Dream Act. That puts the narrative in a new context. The people she was addressing were young folks who weren't born here but were brought here as babes. This is the only home they have ever known.
Hillary wasn't speaking on behalf of Democrats alone, she was simply rehashing the provisions in the bi-partisan Dream Act.

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 asked for it you got it ..double talker....You're wrong.. No "Bipartisan dream act" with a pathway to citizenship only to legal status

 

[JQPublic1]

I see the source of your confusion. n your emboldened sentence, two words identify your interpretative error: limits cooperation.
Those two words do NOT exist in the link you provided. You added them for effect but those two words are not applicable to the principles of so-called sanctuary cities. Your own link says:

So you're saying my computer is adding words when I copy and paste? Maybe you better check that again, because that's all I did and even provided you the link where you can read word for word what I posted.

I did check again. Those two words are not in the link you posted in #1528. Stop being foolish, others are checking it too. And when they don't find those two words your credibility takes a YUUUGGGE hit!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I did check again. Those two words are not in the link you posted in #1528. Stop being foolish, others are checking it too. And when they don't find those two words your credibility takes a YUUUGGGE hit!

And I went back and checked again. It's right there in front of you, fifth paragraph, third sentence. What are you smoking anyway?

This reminds me of an old joke created by the late George Carlin: when two people are in an elevator, and one of you farts, you both know who did it.

The problem with you liberals is you will never admit when you are wrong. This is something you cannot dispute, and I urge anybody here reading this debate to tell me where or how I am wrong. Go to the Wiki link, tell me that my paste didn't come out exactly as copied.

 

[JQPublic1]

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: "

]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.

That sentence is a LOOONNNNGGG non sequitur. Most illegal immigrants are coming here seeking temporary work or to send remittances back home. And Democrats are not looking the other way on federal immigration laws and deportation. How many times do I have to post that Obama has deported more illegal aliens than all of his predecessors combined. You are just living in a RW fantasy world where the truth is so distorted lies become reality.

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.

Although the moderator describes the audience as undocumented hispanic workers he doesn't specific that they are "illegal" immigrants. Those folks could have been refugees from South America or people with Hi-B visas. Do you know?

It came out of her own mouth you idiot "path to citizenship for you and your illegal families"..Are you in denial?...Are you waiting for talking points you heard her say it....Poor boy you don't believe our own ears because nobody told you what to say in response

“We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship,” Clinton said. “Now this is where I differ from everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistake: today not a single Republican candidate announced or potential is clearly or consistently supporting a path to citizenship – not one.”

“When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”

Clinton again positioned a liberal cause as a family and economic issue, as she has on women’s rights. But she also positioned herself to the left of even Obama on immigration, whose orders have led to non-stop conservative ire and legal challenges but would still allow for the deportation of those brought illegally to the country as children – so-called “dreamers”.

Hillary Clinton pushes 'every candidate' (and Obama) to the left on immigration


Watch it again..did you see Hillary's comments?

Yeah I heard Hillary clearly. She said: "As president I will fight for a path to citizenship for you and your families." So what? Fighting for a "path" to citizenship can be interpreted many ways. One clue as to what she meant and who she was talking to is when she mentioned the Dreamers… apparently alluding to the bipartisan Dream Act. That puts the narrative in a new context. The people she was addressing were young folks who weren't born here but were brought here as babes. This is the only home they have ever known.
Hillary wasn't speaking on behalf of Democrats alone, she was simply rehashing the provisions in the bi-partisan Dream Act.

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 asked for it you got it ..double talker....You're wrong.. No "Bipartisan dream act" with a pathway to citizenship only to legal status

She didn't guarantee a pathway to citizenship, she promised to fight for a path to citizenship for people who have been here for years after having been brought here as babies or small children. By "fighting", Clinton means she will try to convince Congress to pass the Dream Act to award permanent residency to qualified Dreamers. That isn't citizenship but it is a path to it!

Npw, get back on topic….

 

[Jroc]

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: "

]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.

That sentence is a LOOONNNNGGG non sequitur. Most illegal immigrants are coming here seeking temporary work or to send remittances back home. And Democrats are not looking the other way on federal immigration laws and deportation. How many times do I have to post that Obama has deported more illegal aliens than all of his predecessors combined. You are just living in a RW fantasy world where the truth is so distorted lies become reality.

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.

Although the moderator describes the audience as undocumented hispanic workers he doesn't specific that they are "illegal" immigrants. Those folks could have been refugees from South America or people with Hi-B visas. Do you know?

It came out of her own mouth you idiot "path to citizenship for you and your illegal families"..Are you in denial?...Are you waiting for talking points you heard her say it....Poor boy you don't believe our own ears because nobody told you what to say in response

“We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship,” Clinton said. “Now this is where I differ from everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistake: today not a single Republican candidate announced or potential is clearly or consistently supporting a path to citizenship – not one.”

“When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”

Clinton again positioned a liberal cause as a family and economic issue, as she has on women’s rights. But she also positioned herself to the left of even Obama on immigration, whose orders have led to non-stop conservative ire and legal challenges but would still allow for the deportation of those brought illegally to the country as children – so-called “dreamers”.

Hillary Clinton pushes 'every candidate' (and Obama) to the left on immigration


Watch it again..did you see Hillary's comments?

Yeah I heard Hillary clearly. She said: "As president I will fight for a path to citizenship for you and your families." So what? Fighting for a "path" to citizenship can be interpreted many ways. One clue as to what she meant and who she was talking to is when she mentioned the Dreamers… apparently alluding to the bipartisan Dream Act. That puts the narrative in a new context. The people she was addressing were young folks who weren't born here but were brought here as babes. This is the only home they have ever known.
Hillary wasn't speaking on behalf of Democrats alone, she was simply rehashing the provisions in the bi-partisan Dream Act.

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 asked for it you got it ..double talker....You're wrong.. No "Bipartisan dream act" with a pathway to citizenship only to legal status

She didn't guarantee a pathway to citizenship, she promised to fight for a path to citizenship for people who have been here for years after having been brought here as babies or small children. By "fighting", Clinton means she will try to convince Congress to pass the Dream Act to award permanent residency to qualified Dreamers. That isn't citizenship but it is a path to it!

Npw, get back on topic….

I know what she said, you know what's she means. Listen to it a few more times. I think you're a little slow. and there is no Bipartisan dream act with a pathway to citizenship

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I see the source of your confusion. n your emboldened sentence, two words identify your interpretative error: limits cooperation.
Those two words do NOT exist in the link you provided. You added them for effect but those two words are not applicable to the principles of so-called sanctuary cities. Your own link says:

So you're saying my computer is adding words when I copy and paste? Maybe you better check that again, because that's all I did and even provided you the link where you can read word for word what I posted.

I did check again. Those two words are not in the link you posted in #1528. Stop being foolish, others are checking it too. And when they don't find those two words your credibility takes a YUUUGGGE hit!

You clearly don't have enough knowledge on the subject nor common sense to have any credibility. I'm happy to see you decided to move on from the topic - smart move.

 

[JQPublic1]

I see the source of your confusion. n your emboldened sentence, two words identify your interpretative error: limits cooperation.
Those two words do NOT exist in the link you provided. You added them for effect but those two words are not applicable to the principles of so-called sanctuary cities. Your own link says:

So you're saying my computer is adding words when I copy and paste? Maybe you better check that again, because that's all I did and even provided you the link where you can read word for word what I posted.

I did check again. Those two words are not in the link you posted in #1528. Stop being foolish, others are checking it too. And when they don't find those two words your credibility takes a YUUUGGGE hit!

You clearly don't have enough knowledge on the subject nor common sense to have any credibility. I'm happy to see you decided to move on from the topic - smart move.

I moved on because the op is about what Blacks have to lose if Trump is elected. I clearly have enough sense to recognize that…apparently YOU don't. You and your comrades are deflecting. I am simply trying to steer the conversation back to the topic.

 

[JQPublic1]

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: "

]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.

That sentence is a LOOONNNNGGG non sequitur. Most illegal immigrants are coming here seeking temporary work or to send remittances back home. And Democrats are not looking the other way on federal immigration laws and deportation. How many times do I have to post that Obama has deported more illegal aliens than all of his predecessors combined. You are just living in a RW fantasy world where the truth is so distorted lies become reality.

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.

Although the moderator describes the audience as undocumented hispanic workers he doesn't specific that they are "illegal" immigrants. Those folks could have been refugees from South America or people with Hi-B visas. Do you know?

It came out of her own mouth you idiot "path to citizenship for you and your illegal families"..Are you in denial?...Are you waiting for talking points you heard her say it....Poor boy you don't believe our own ears because nobody told you what to say in response

“We can’t wait any longer for a path to full and equal citizenship,” Clinton said. “Now this is where I differ from everybody on the Republican side. Make no mistake: today not a single Republican candidate announced or potential is clearly or consistently supporting a path to citizenship – not one.”

“When they talk about legal status, that is code for second-class status.”

Clinton again positioned a liberal cause as a family and economic issue, as she has on women’s rights. But she also positioned herself to the left of even Obama on immigration, whose orders have led to non-stop conservative ire and legal challenges but would still allow for the deportation of those brought illegally to the country as children – so-called “dreamers”.

Hillary Clinton pushes 'every candidate' (and Obama) to the left on immigration


Watch it again..did you see Hillary's comments?

Yeah I heard Hillary clearly. She said: "As president I will fight for a path to citizenship for you and your families." So what? Fighting for a "path" to citizenship can be interpreted many ways. One clue as to what she meant and who she was talking to is when she mentioned the Dreamers… apparently alluding to the bipartisan Dream Act. That puts the narrative in a new context. The people she was addressing were young folks who weren't born here but were brought here as babes. This is the only home they have ever known.
Hillary wasn't speaking on behalf of Democrats alone, she was simply rehashing the provisions in the bi-partisan Dream Act.

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 asked for it you got it ..double talker....You're wrong.. No "Bipartisan dream act" with a pathway to citizenship only to legal status

She didn't guarantee a pathway to citizenship, she promised to fight for a path to citizenship for people who have been here for years after having been brought here as babies or small children. By "fighting", Clinton means she will try to convince Congress to pass the Dream Act to award permanent residency to qualified Dreamers. That isn't citizenship but it is a path to it!

Npw, get back on topic….

I know what she said, you know what's she means. Listen to it a few more times. I think you're a little slow. and there is no Bipartisan dream act with a pathway to citizenship

What has any of that to do with the op?