Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation' against left-wing sanctuary cities

  
Via:  just-jim-nc-ttth  •  2 months ago  •  138 comments

By:   Gregg Re

Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation' against left-wing sanctuary cities
Charging that so-called "sanctuary" cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security, Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a "significant escalation" against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the "lawful functioning of our nation's immigration system."

Hopefully this time around it will stick.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Speaking at the National Sheriff’s Association 2020 Winter Legislative and Technology Conference in Washington, D.C., Barr said the Justice Department would immediately file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions for unconstitutionally interfering with federal immigration enforcement, and implement unprecedented national reviews of left-wing sanctuary governments and prosecutors.

"Let us state the reality upfront and as clearly as possible," Barr began. "When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape. These policies are not about people who came to our country illegally but have otherwise been peaceful and productive members of society.  Their express purpose is to shelter aliens whom local law enforcement has already arrested for other crimes.  This is neither lawful nor sensible."

The DOJ has now filed a federal complaint against the State of New Jersey seeking declaratory and injunctive relief "against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS," Barr said.
That was a reference to New Jersey Attorney General Law Enforcement Directive 2018-6, which the DOJ says illegally bars officials from sharing the immigration status and release dates of individuals in custody. It also requires New Jersey law enforcement to “promptly notify a detained individual, in writing and in a language the individual can understand” if Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) files an immigration detainer request for the individual.

Additionally, "we are filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against King County, Washington, for the policy ... that forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport," Barr said.
That lawsuit targets King County Executive Order PFC-7-1-EO, which the DOJ said has dramatically increased operating costs for ICE as detainees have had to be transported to Yakima, Washington. The executive order unconstitutionally conflicts with the federal Airline Deregulation Act, which "prohibits localities such as King County from enacting or enforcing laws or regulations that relate to prices, routes, or services of air carriers," the DOJ said.

"Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies, and laws of other jurisdictions across the country.  This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States," Barr added, noting that the DOJ would support DHS with "federal subpoenas to access information about criminal aliens in the custody of uncooperative jurisdictions."
And, Barr said, "we are meticulously reviewing the actions of certain district attorneys who have adopted policies of charging foreign nationals with lesser offenses for the express purpose of avoiding the federal immigration consequences of those nationals’ criminal conduct.  In pursuing their personal ambitions and misguided notions of equal justice, these district attorneys are systematically violating the rule of law and may even be unlawfully discriminating against American citizens."

Prosecutors in New York and California have changed their policies so that prosecutors explicitly consider so-called "collateral consequences," including deportation, before pursuing certain charges.
Sanctuary cities, Barr said, are defined as those with policies that allow "criminal aliens to escape" federal law enforcement -- and some jurisdictions are becoming "more aggressive" in undermining immigration authorities, with local politicians  even developing "schemes" to circumvent immigration officials.
In 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on an imminent raid by federal immigration authorities, tweeting out a warning to illegal immigrants in advance and helping them hide.
As the president did during last week's State of the Union address, the attorney general cited several instances in which illegal immigrants were able to commit deadly crimes because they were sheltered by left-wing sanctuaries.

"In November, ICE filed a detainer for an alien who was arrested for assaulting his own father," Barr said. "The local police in New York City that had the alien in custody ignored the detainer.  So the alien was released onto the streets, and last month, he allegedly raped and killed 92-year-old Maria Fuertes, affectionately known as 'abuelita,' a fixture of her Queens neighborhood."

And, In October 2017, DHS "identified a convicted criminal alien with four prior removals at a city jail in Washington State," Barr continued. "DHS filed a detainer.  Subsequently, the alien fought with jail staff and was taken to a local medical center for treatment.  But after receiving treatment, local officials released the alien in violation of the detainer.  In January 2018, the alien was arrested and booked for murdering and dismembering his cousin."
While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.
"The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments," Barr said. The 'Supremacy Clause' in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the 'Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'"
He added: "This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order.  Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government.  And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way.  While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts."
Barr emphasized that there is no way to determine how many "criminal aliens" are in the U.S., in part because of "local policies," although recent estimates under the Obama administration put the number as high as 2 million.

Charging that so-called "sanctuary" cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security, Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a "significant escalation" against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the "lawful functioning of our nation's immigration system."

Prosecutors in New York and California have changed their policies so that prosecutors explicitly consider so-called "collateral consequences," including deportation, before pursuing certain charges.
Sanctuary cities, Barr said, are defined as those with policies that allow "criminal aliens to escape" federal law enforcement -- and some jurisdictions are becoming "more aggressive" in undermining immigration authorities, with local politicians  even developing "schemes" to circumvent immigration officials.
In 2018, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf blew the whistle on an imminent raid by federal immigration authorities, tweeting out a warning to illegal immigrants in advance and helping them hide.
As the president did during last week's State of the Union address, the attorney general cited several instances in which illegal immigrants were able to commit deadly crimes because they were sheltered by left-wing sanctuaries.

"In November, ICE filed a detainer for an alien who was arrested for assaulting his own father," Barr said. "The local police in New York City that had the alien in custody ignored the detainer.  So the alien was released onto the streets, and last month, he allegedly raped and killed 92-year-old Maria Fuertes, affectionately known as 'abuelita,' a fixture of her Queens neighborhood."
And, In October 2017, DHS "identified a convicted criminal alien with four prior removals at a city jail in Washington State," Barr continued. "DHS filed a detainer.  Subsequently, the alien fought with jail staff and was taken to a local medical center for treatment.  But after receiving treatment, local officials released the alien in violation of the detainer.  In January 2018, the alien was arrested and booked for murdering and dismembering his cousin."
While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.
"The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments," Barr said. The 'Supremacy Clause' in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the 'Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'"
He added: "This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order.  Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government.  And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way.  While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts."
Barr emphasized that there is no way to determine how many "criminal aliens" are in the U.S., in part because of "local policies," although recent estimates under the Obama administration put the number as high as 2 million.
"Assuming that estimate was accurate, the numbers are likely even higher today despite the Trump Administration’s consistent and concerted efforts to find and deport this criminal population," Barr said.
It is the "rule of law that is fundamental to ensuring both freedom and security," Barr asserted, saying law enforcement officers are increasingly under fire in "heinous" attacks that "come against the backdrop of cynicism and disrespect for law enforcement."
Barr touted the DOJ's lawsuit against California and other states over their sanctuary policies. The suit over California involves the law prohibiting the federal government from conducting operations in its own affiliated private immigration facilities and detention centers.
The law, Barr said, was a "blatant attempt by the State to prohibit DHS from detaining aliens, and to interfere with the ability of the Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service to manage federal detainees and prisoners."
"The department sued the State of California to enjoin numerous state laws that attempted to frustrate federal immigration enforcement," Barr said. "We prevailed on several of our claims in the lower courts, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will grant our request to review the remaining issues and side with us against California’s obstructionist policies."
He concluded, "Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of 'sanctuary cities.'  But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe.  We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law."

Barr's new sanctions come as the Trump administration has already announced other initiatives targeting illegal immigration in the wake of the president's State of the Union address last week.
Last week, Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf exclusively told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" that DHS was immediately suspending enrollment in Global Entry and several other Trusted Traveler Programs (TTP) for all New York state residents — a dramatic move in response to the liberal state's recently enacted sanctuary "Green Light Law."
Barr slammed the law in his speech Monday, calling it "unlawful."
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations Todd Owen later told Fox News that up to 800,000 New Yorkers could be affected by the rule change within the next five years. Owen said people with pending Global Entry applications would be refunded, and that those with active applications would not be affected until their renewal date.
Illegal immigrants rushed to New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs) in large numbers after the "Green Light Law," which allowed them to obtain driver's licenses or learner's permits regardless of their immigration status, took effect last December. The law also permitted applicants to use foreign documents, including passports, to be submitted in order to obtain licenses.
In a letter to top New York state officials obtained exclusively by Fox News, Wolf noted that the New York law prohibited DMV agencies across the state from sharing criminal records with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE.

"In New York alone, last year ICE arrested 149 child predators, identified or rescued 105 victims of exploitation and human trafficking, arrested 230 gang members, and seized 6,487 pounds of illegal narcotics, including fentanyl and opioids," Wolf wrote to New York officials. "In the vast majority of these cases, ICE relied on New York DMV records to fulfill its mission."
The "Green Light Law," Wolf went on, "compromises CBP's ability to confirm whether an individual applying for TTP membership meets program eligibility requirements."
"This Act and the corresponding lack of security cooperation from the New York DMV requires DHS to take immediate action to ensure DHS' s efforts to protect the Homeland are not compromised," he said


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Ozzwald
1  Ozzwald    2 months ago

About time.  This country barely survived after that last caravan..../sarc  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1    2 months ago

Thank God!  We also need to take back the House, win a super majority in the Senate and get some strong legislation on this with severe punishments for cities, states and officials who defy immigration law.

Voted up!

 
 
 
Dragon
1.1.1  Dragon  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    2 months ago

You fail to mention employers who defy immigration law and hire illegals and are never fined/penalized/jailed. Current laws are ignored by cities, states and officials. It is not just sanctuary cities/states, it is ALL places where current laws are not upheld, and that includes red cities/states.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dragon @1.1.1    2 months ago

That's part of it for sure. However, the big inducement now is to getting those illegals voting. That's the grand game the democrats are playing.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Dragon @1.1.1    2 months ago
You fail to mention employers who defy immigration law and hire illegals 

I have never witnessed anyone on NT defending these practices, I for one recommend exponentially increasing their fines every time they are caught, the color of the state makes no difference.  

 
 
 
Dragon
1.1.4  Dragon  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.3    2 months ago

I never said anyone was defending those practices, I merely pointed out that there are current laws that are not being adhered to regardless of city/state politics. 

 
 
 
Dragon
1.1.5  Dragon  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    2 months ago

You do yourself a disservice when you repeat false GOP talking points. Please post some specific examples, some facts about how Democrats are trying to get illegals voting...facts please, not opinion. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.6  gooseisgone  replied to  Dragon @1.1.5    2 months ago
 false GOP talking points. Democrats are trying to get illegals voting...facts please, not opinion. 

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/democrats-benefit-from-illegal-immigrants-voting_b_1418523

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/8/house-votes-favor-illegal-immigrant-voting/

https://onenewsnow.com/politics-govt/2018/08/01/54-of-dems-polled-give-illegals-right-to-vote

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/416225-the-truth-about-illegal-voting

Please explain why democrats have done a complete 180 on illegals coming into this country.  Why they are so opposed to voter ID. Why do they want to issue drivers licenses to illegals. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @1    2 months ago

So you don't have a problem with undocumented alien criminals being released?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.1  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @1.2    2 months ago
So you don't have a problem with undocumented alien criminals being released?

Hey Wally, why have you bailed on 5 other comment strings as soon as I ask you to justify your comment?  

"undocumented alien criminals"......jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

59019f151400002000a9c1c1.jpeg?ops=scalef

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    2 months ago

Actually, they're ILLEGAL ALIENS with criminal records.  Deport them - immediately - according to the immigration laws on the books.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    2 months ago

So it would seem your answer is no, you don't have a problem with it.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.4  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    2 months ago

Did you not read the article? It's your job to dispute the reality of crimes committed by illegals

And you didn't answer the question

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.5  Ozzwald  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.2    2 months ago
Actually, they're ILLEGAL ALIENS with criminal records.

Prove it...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.6  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @1.2.4    2 months ago
It's your job to dispute the reality of crimes committed by illegals

[deleted] Are you talking illegal immigrants or asylum seekers?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.7  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.6    2 months ago
Are you talking illegal immigrants or asylum seekers?

If they are asylum seekers then they couldn't very well be illegal now could they. Why your love affair with illegals? Do you like the fact that they often traffic in minor children for sex slaves?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.2.8  Greg Jones  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.6    2 months ago

I suspect he is talking about illegal aliens who have a criminal record, or are in jail with criminal charges pending. Asylum seeker is a wholly different manner, although many claims for asylum are fraudulent.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-alien-statistics

https://www.illegalaliencrimereport.com/

https://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-immigration/examples-serious-crimes-illegal-aliens

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.8    2 months ago
I suspect he is talking about illegal aliens who have a criminal record

You suspect?  Why doesn't he answer for himself?  Then he can explain how he knows they have criminal records.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
1.2.10  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    2 months ago

They are indeed criminal illegal alien invaders of America...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.11  Ozzwald  replied to  Donald J. Trump Fan #1 @1.2.10    2 months ago
They are indeed criminal illegal alien invaders of America...

Or are they asylum seekers?

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.2.12  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.11    2 months ago

There is a process for seeking asylum. They are not asylum seekers till they have completed the process. Until then they are illegal aliens. Understand?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.13  Ozzwald  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.2.12    2 months ago
There is a process for seeking asylum.

The process is approaching an official and requesting asylum.

They are not asylum seekers till they have completed the process.

WRONG!  They are asylum seekers, as soon as they decide to go to America to seek asylum...duh!

Until then they are illegal aliens. Understand?

Oh, I understand.  You are the one who seems to be making shit up as you go.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.2.12    2 months ago

Seeking asylum is seeking asylum.

Understand?

 
 
 
squiggy
1.2.15  squiggy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.1    2 months ago

82462732_2814059261987047_62641188423986

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
1.2.16  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.13    2 months ago
WRONG!  They are asylum seekers, as soon as they decide to go to America to seek asylum...duh!

That is just one requirement for seeking asylum. They are not officially asylum seekers until they have been seen by a judge. They can be denied asylum status.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.2.17  1stwarrior  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.13    2 months ago

How long will it take for you to pay attention to information given you regarding immigration?

To apply for asylum, you must  submit Form I-589 , Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Along with the form, you must submit documents, affidavits, and any evidence you have proving who you are and what persecution you (and your family, if any) faced in the past or would face in the future in your home country.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/can-undocumented-immigrant-get-asylum.html

You can not just "walk up to a BP agent" for asylum - that is making shyte up.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.18  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.9    2 months ago
You suspect?  Why doesn't he answer for himself?

Actually he explicitly said he was talking about criminals.

"Let us state the reality upfront and as clearly as possible," Barr began. "When we are talking about sanctuary cities, we are talking about policies that are designed to allow criminal aliens to escape.
 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.19  Ozzwald  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @1.2.16    2 months ago
They are not officially asylum seekers until they have been seen by a judge.

Bullshit, stop posting these lies.

They can be denied asylum status.

They cannot be denied asylum unless they are already seeking asylum.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.20  Ozzwald  replied to  1stwarrior @1.2.17    2 months ago

You can not just "walk up to a BP agent" for asylum - that is making shyte up.

Yes you can.

Asylum in the United States

An individual generally must apply for asylum within one year of arriving in the United States. Whether DHS is obligated to notify asylum seekers of this deadline is the subject of pending litigation. A class-action lawsuit has challenged the government's failure to provide asylum seekers adequate notice of the one-year deadline and a uniform procedure for filing timely applications.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.21  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.20    2 months ago
You can not just "walk up to a BP agent" for asylum

Then you..

Yes you can. An individual generally must apply for asylum

APPLY, Do you know the definition of apply? It is not sneaking across the border and then when you are caught yelling asylum please.

My god man....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.22  Ozzwald  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.21    2 months ago
APPLY, Do you know the definition of apply?

Do you?  Apparently you do not.  1st step to applying for asylum is walking up to a government agent and state that you are seeking asylum.  I do not understand why you are having such a difficult time grasping this simple concept.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.2.23  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.22    2 months ago

You still have not told us why you want illegal aliens with a criminal record to be offered asylum here.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.24  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @1.2.23    2 months ago

You still have not told us why you want illegal aliens with a criminal record to be offered asylum here.

You still haven't told me why you refuse to stay on topic, instead of getting statements from your spam folder.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1    2 months ago

Maybe you should tell that to the families of Juan Carlos Con Guzman and Maria Fuertues.  

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/18/second-illegal-immigrant-tied-merciless-sanctuary-/

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bronsonstocking/2020/01/15/illegal-immigrant-kills-92yearold-nyc-woman-ice-lodges-detainer-n2559569

But hey...…..I guess some people have to take one for the team in the Democrats mind.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.3    2 months ago
Maybe you should tell that to the families of Juan Carlos Con Guzman and Maria Fuertues.  

Do you feel that all murders by American citizens should be expelled from the country as well?  

Criminal Alien Statistics Fiscal Year 2020

TOTAL CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS BY TYPE

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 TD   JAN
Assault, battery, domestic violence 1,007 692 524 299 61
Burglary, robbery, larceny, theft, fraud 825 595 347 184 49
Driving under the influence 2,458 1,596 1,113 614 166
Homicide, manslaughter 8 3 3 2 0
Illegal drug possession, trafficking 1,797 1,249 871 449 121
Illegal entry, re-entry 7,060 4,502 3,920 2,663 614
Illegal weapons possession, transport, trafficking 237 173 106 66 11
Sexual offenses 155 137 80 58 19
Other   1 2,544 1,851 1,364 814 205
 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.1    2 months ago
Do you feel that all murders by American citizens should be expelled from the country as well?  

We do not deport anyone who is an American. 

We do, however, imprison Americans convicted of crimes, depending on what type of crime it is.

WTF does that have to do with illegal aliens being deported for being criminals?

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.3.3  It Is ME  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.2    2 months ago
WTF does that have to do with illegal aliens being deported for being criminals?

We should start a new "food for thought" brand name : " Kneejerky " ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.2    2 months ago

WTF does that have to do with illegal aliens being deported for being criminals?

See the above chart.  Thousands of murders by American citizens every year, ones of murders by illegal immigrants every year.  Yet you are ready and willing to punish all immigrants and asylum seekers because of that minuscule number.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.3.5  Snuffy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.4    2 months ago

But isn't that the mantra of the left on gun control?  If it saves just one life it's worth it?

I mean, come on. If someone has no legal right to be in this country and they have committed a felony why do you want to keep them in this country?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.3.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Snuffy @1.3.5    2 months ago
But isn't that the mantra of the left on gun control?

Ahhh, so let's compare apples to toothpaste.

b30.jpg

I mean, come on. If someone has no legal right to be in this country and they have committed a felony why do you want to keep them in this country?

2 problems with you outrageously false statement there.

1 - I never said that.

2 - Trouble is that you do not differentiate between asylum seekers and those that knowingly stay in this country illegally. 

I can guarantee that you do not because the majority of illegal immigrants do not enter by the southern border.  Yet those are the only one right wingers are concerned with, the ones from "shit hole countries".

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.3.7  KDMichigan  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    2 months ago
the majority of illegal immigrants do not enter by the southern border. 

Where did you get this pile of information? LMAO

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.3.8  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.6    2 months ago
Yet those are the only one right wingers are concerned with, the ones from "shit hole countries".

Yep that pretty much covers all of them.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.4    2 months ago
Thousands of murders by American citizens every year, ones of murders by illegal immigrants every year.  Yet you are ready and willing to punish all immigrants and asylum seekers because of that minuscule number.

Pure, unadulterated bullshit.

I have never once even suggested punishing legal immigrants or asylum seekers in any way, shape, or form.

Why do you feel the need to COMPLETELY misrepresent something I have written.

Weak sauce and poor form.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  KDMichigan @1.3.7    2 months ago

I'd sure like to know that also. I live 6 blocks from the AZ/Mexico border fence and the thousands of illegals we get coming through my neck of the desert is just our imagination right? I get illegals running the alley behind my house almost every night 365 days a year and the only thing that keeps them off my property is my excellent alarm system consisting of two large dogs that do not like strangers!.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2  Ed-NavDoc    2 months ago

Just one word about Barr's sanctions. GOOD!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3  1stwarrior    2 months ago

The states have slowly but surely began superseding Fed law and replacing it with their laws.  The way Fed law works is that, unless otherwise specified in the Constitution, states have to abide by Fed law on a national level.  They can write corresponding laws that are equal to or tougher than Fed law, but they can not write laws that are weaker or overturn Fed law.

I'm glad to see what DOJ is doing in this instance.  What would be a helluva lot better is if Congress, in its entirety, would get off their azzes and quit the damn freebee game in all aspects, including immigration.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4  Texan1211    2 months ago

Why are so many liberals dead-set against immigration laws being enforced?

Why do Democrats continue to risk American citizens' health and well-being by putting illegal aliens above their legal constituents?

Why do so many American Democrats continue to elect people who clearly have little regard for their safety?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @4    2 months ago
Why are so many liberals dead-set against immigration laws being enforced?

Let's see if I can figure that one out.....

Do voting trends tell the tale?




TexasHouse2011_1.png

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @4    2 months ago
Why are so many liberals dead-set against immigration laws being enforced?

And even if they don't like immigration laws, why are they so cavalier about releasing dangerous criminals back into society when they could easily help get them removed from the entire country?

It's like finding a poisonous bug in your house. OK, maybe you aren't the kind of person who steps on bugs. Fine. Don't kill it if that helps you sleep at night. But you could still trap it and throw it outside. Why let it run free in the house? I just don't get it. 

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
4.2.1  jungkonservativ111  replied to  Tacos! @4.2    2 months ago

The types of things they say are just odd too. They think every person who illegally crosses our borders are automatically asylum seekers. Where did they get that idea? And when you point out the crime from people who aren't supposed to be here, they just point at our own citizens and point our their crimes. WTF? Who gives a shit if illegals theoretically commit less crime? Less is still more than none. Who would want to share a country with people who think like that?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    2 months ago
forbids DHS from deporting aliens from the United States using King County International Airport

OMG I did not know that one was out there. That's insane - and legally flawed on multiple levels. Blatant interference. Wow.

While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.

This is the legal line and it's been pretty well established in the case law by now. Local governments don't have to help the federal government, but they can't get in the way, either. This means that not all sanctuary policies will be illegal. But in cases where law enforcement is literally prohibited from simple communication or federal officials can't even use the airport, I think the local governments will lose in the courts.

The path to discouraging the passive non-cooperation is probably through the use of the spending power. Generally, that flows through Congress, but the Executive may have some limited discretion in that area.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Tacos! @5    2 months ago

Aiding, Abetting and Harbouring are all violations of the Immigration laws - and that is exactly what sanctuary areas do - aid, abet and harbor.

 
 
 
Tacos!
5.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1    2 months ago

Agreed, but there's a line. Pointing a bank robber away from the cops chasing him makes one an accessory, but passively watching him escape and not alerting the police is - legally - ok.

Federalism is kind of similar. Under the rules of federalism, the states can aid the feds if they want to, but they don't have to. However, getting in their way is not ok.

 
 
 
Snuffy
5.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Tacos! @5.1.1    2 months ago
Under the rules of federalism, the states can aid the feds if they want to, but they don't have to.

Yep. But this is a very tricky area based on where states draw the line. I feel the two party political system has devolved to where the line is poorly chosen more to just stick it to the other side than to actually do good.  Case in point the reporting to the NICS system. A lot of states are so bad in their reporting but I think most everyone could agree that this is an area where states should be standing up to work with the federal government.

 
 
 
evilgenius
5.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1    2 months ago
Aiding, Abetting and Harbouring are all violations of the Immigration laws -

Not checking one's immigration status when being questioned is not Aiding, Abetting and Harboring, nor is the State/City telling ICE to do their own jobs and not make city cops do it for them.

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.3    2 months ago

What are ALL "City Cops " hired to do ?

 
 
 
WallyW
5.1.5  WallyW  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.3    2 months ago

...nor is the State/City telling ICE to do their own jobs and not make city cops do it for them.

City cops are invariably an illegal alien's first contact with law enforcement, not an ICE agent

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6  Paula Bartholomew    2 months ago

F barr, the horse he rode, twice on sundays.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
7  Steve Ott    2 months ago

FROM THE ARTICLE:

While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.

"The Founding Fathers carefully divided responsibility and power between the federal government and the state governments," Barr said. The 'Supremacy Clause' in Article VI of the Constitution provides that the 'Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land.'"

He added: "This Clause is a vital part of our constitutional order.  Enforcing a country’s immigration laws is an essential function of the national government.  And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way.  While federal law does not require that 'sanctuary jurisdictions' actively assist with federal immigration enforcement, it does prohibit them from interfering with our enforcement efforts."

So, I see a couple of things here:

1.     While the Constitution entrusts the police power to the states and does not require states to affirmatively assist federal authorities in implementing and enforcing immigration law, Barr said, it does clearly prohibit the states from actively interfering with federal immigration officials.

     In what ways are local officials interfering with federal officials? Not assisting is not the same as interfering, and Barr knows, or should know that.

2.     And no national government can enforce those laws properly if state and local governments are getting in the way.

     Sounds like a federal grab for more power and perhaps wanting to simply overthrow local and state governments altogether.

 
 
 
pat wilson
7.1  pat wilson  replied to  Steve Ott @7    2 months ago
    Sounds like a federal grab for more power and perhaps wanting to simply overthrow local and state governments altogether.

Nothing would surprise me anymore.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2  Tacos!  replied to  Steve Ott @7    2 months ago
In what ways are local officials interfering with federal officials?

1) Telling local law enforcement that they are forbidden to communicate with federal officers and 2) Blocking federal officers from using a public airport to do their jobs.

 
 
 
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
7.2.1  Donald J. Trump Fan #1  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    2 months ago

That’s definitely true here in Californication where the idiot state government prevents conservative business owners and rural county law enforcement from cooperation with ICE even though they want to do so.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.2.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    2 months ago
1) Telling local law enforcement that they are forbidden to communicate with federal officers

How does not talking to them interfere?  It just makes the feds do their own jobs.

2) Blocking federal officers from using a public airport to do their jobs.

Public airport?  Really?  King County International Airport is owned by the Federal government?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.2    2 months ago
How does not talking to them interfere?

It's more than simply "not talking to them." It is the state making it a crime for local LEOs to talk to the feds even though they want to. Local law enforcement agencies routinely set their own agendas and determine their own best practices. Now the state is stepping in to obstruct ongoing cooperation.

Public airport?  Really?  King County International Airport is owned by the Federal government?

Federal agencies have jurisdiction over virtually every aspect of airport operations. That's true of any airport, much less an international one. The federal government conducts all sorts of business in that airport. It's a federal port of entry. On what possible grounds do you imagine that the state can start telling the federal government it can't use the facility to transport people being deported?

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.4  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.3    2 months ago

Imo Steve sounds absolutely correct.

This is only giving more power to the feds.

Something the right use to be against.

If they can wrestle control of local jurisdictions, do you think it will end with one aspect?

It seems some think that the federal government putting 'sanctions' on a state or withholding funds from a state is a good thing.

It seems to me the right wing has gone from state rights to federal takeover or else, all within three years of a presidency.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  Ender @7.2.4    2 months ago
This is only giving more power to the feds.

The federal government is free to pursue violators of federal crimes wherever they may go. Getting in the way of that is - and always has been - a crime.

If they can wrestle control of local jurisdictions

If your local sheriff wants to call ICE and let them know he has a criminal in custody that ICE is looking for, he should be allowed to do that. For what possible reason would you seek to prevent him from doing that?

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.6  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.5    2 months ago

From what I can see if a sheriff wants to do that, there is nothing stopping it.

It is what the local jurisdictions want to do.

Take San Francisco for example, they turn over violent criminals.

It is not enough for this administration as they want complete compliance.

In its latest move, the Department of Justice has threatened to subpoena local officials if they don't turn over documents by Friday to show whether they are sharing information with ICE. https://www.npr.org/2018/02/23/587974852/now-on-immigrations-front-lines-sheriffs-are-choosing-to-back-or-snub-ice

Older article yet pertains.

The California sanctuary law basically only states that they don't have to post or send ICE release dates for prisoners. They still detain violent criminals and judges have discretion as well. ICE can still go into jails and question people.

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.7  katrix  replied to  Ender @7.2.6    2 months ago

I wonder if these folks feel the same way about the sanctuary cities being proposed in Virginia, in response to the new gun control laws.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @7.2.7    2 months ago

Consider the stakes. One kind of sanctuary city is trying to protect violent criminals who shouldn't even be in the country. The other one is trying to preserve the Constitutional rights of American citizens. I feel no shame in supporting the latter.

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.9  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.8    2 months ago

And what kind is that? From what I can tell, even 'sanctuary cities' let ICE pick up violent criminals.

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.10  Ender  replied to  katrix @7.2.7    2 months ago

Now they are actually flouting ignoring judicial orders.

As Washington reels from the surprise withdrawals of Roger Stone‘s prosecutors, apparently triggered by Trump’sintervention in the upcoming sentencing of his long-time adviser, the Easterbrook broadside offers another window into the way the Trump administration is violating the division of power between the executive and judicial branches.

The 7th Circuit case involved an undocumented immigrant, Jorge Baez-Sanchez, who was subject to removal from the United States after being convicted of a crime. Baez-Sanchez applied for a special visa allowing him to remain in the U.S. if he was also a victim of a crime. An immigration judge twice granted Baez-Sanchez a waiver. But the Board of Immigration Appeals reversed the immigration judge’s decision, claiming that only the attorney general personally could grant waivers—not immigration judges. Baez-Sanchez appealed to the 7th Circuit, which disagreed and remanded the case with a directive that the Department of Homeland Security comply with the immigration judge’s waiver. When it refused, Easterbrook, a 35-year veteran of the court, had had enough of the willful disregard for judicial authority.

“We have never before encountered defiance of a remand order, and we hope never to see it again,” Easterbrook wrote. “Members of the Board must count themselves lucky that Baez-Sanchez has not asked us to hold them in contempt, with all the consequences that possibility entails.”

Given Trump’s record of defiance, Barr’s maneuver is predictable—but it is a shocking break with more than 200 years of constitutional and legal precedent.

Link
 
 
 
katrix
7.2.11  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.8    2 months ago

Ah, so apparently you support local governments breaking laws as long as it's for a cause you support. Got it.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.2.12  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.3    2 months ago
It is the state making it a crime for local LEOs

A crime?  Please provide a link to the California criminal code you are citing.

Federal agencies have jurisdiction over virtually every aspect of airport operations.

Changing your story?  You stated it was a public airport, not a private one, why can't you back up your own claim?  Or are you going to move the goalposts and try to change your story again?

On what possible grounds do you imagine that the state can start telling the federal government it can't use the facility to transport people being deported?

Constitution outlines state vs federal rights.  Are you saying that the federal government can over ride individual states? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.2.13  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @7.2.11    2 months ago

Gun ownership.........illegal occupation of a foreign land.

One is against the law. The other is a Constitutional right. Let me know if you need some help sorting that out. I'm here for you.

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.14  katrix  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.2.13    2 months ago

It's also perfectly legal for a state to require background checks by gun sellers, and to restrict gun ownership by people who are considered to be dangers.

Just as FEDERAL law restricts gun ownership by convicted felons.

Let me know if you need some help sorting that out, or if you prefer to cling to hypocrisy.

 
 
 
evilgenius
7.2.15  evilgenius  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @7.2.13    2 months ago
.......illegal occupation of a foreign land

Charged language doesn't make you correct. It makes you look willfully obtuse.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.16  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.12    2 months ago
Changing your story?  You stated it was a public airport, not a private one, why can't you back up your own claim?  Or are you going to move the goalposts and try to change your story again?

Please don't try to distract with stupid garbage. You think you're attacking the logic of an argument, but you aren't.

Why don't you explain why you want to protect illegal alien criminals?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.2.17  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  katrix @7.2.14    2 months ago
It's also perfectly legal for a state to require background checks by gun sellers, and to restrict gun ownership by people who are considered to be dangers.

Who said it wasn't? And who said they don't already? Let me help you out with the red flag portion. Say you don't like your neighbor..........no. They don't like you. Now, they turn you in because you are a domestic violence risk in their opinion fully unsubstantiated. Full investigation fucks up your life and reputation as there will always be that "risk" and uncertainty among some even though you are completely found innocent of such ridiculous assumption that someone made. How do you suppose that would feel?

 
 
 
loki12
 
 
Ozzwald
7.2.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.16    2 months ago
Please don't try to distract with stupid garbage.

fvuba0sUYzwxQ3IkBy3V7Eylkhiof-A-ttI7SZQG

Why don't you explain why you want to protect illegal alien criminals?

ref02071515_465_208_int.jpg

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.2.20  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  evilgenius @7.2.15    2 months ago

Did my "charged language" offend you?

1.) I'm sorry

2.) It won't happen again

3.) Number 1 and 2 are lies

4.) I wasn't talking to you anyway

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @7.2.19    2 months ago

It's pretty simple. You either think illegal alien criminals should be roaming the streets of America or you don't. Choose now.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.3    2 months ago
Local law enforcement agencies routinely set their own agendas and determine their own best practices.

Within the process and procedures set out by State legislators. 

Now the state is stepping in to obstruct ongoing cooperation.

Yep, again, the State legislature makes the rules. Under the Constitution, States are sovereign.

I find it hypocritical that when states like Texas pass legislation that REQUIRES localities to cooperate with the Feds and makes it illegal for them to pass non-cooperation legislation, the RW cheers.  

On what possible grounds do you imagine that the state can start telling the federal government it can't use the facility to transport people being deported?

Well gee Tacos!, there MUST be some 'possible grounds' because ICE isn't using that airport for deportations OR incoming to 'detention facilities'. You remember when Trump threatened to dump immigrants right? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.23  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.22    2 months ago

Why do you want illegal alien criminals roaming the streets?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.24  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.23    2 months ago

Why are you posting bullshit strawmen? 

Pffft. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.25  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.24    2 months ago

Why are you dodging the central issue? You either want illegal alien criminals walking the streets of America or you want to get rid of them. Which do you choose? Choose now and end the bullshit.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.21    2 months ago
It's pretty simple. You either think illegal alien criminals should be roaming the streets of America or you don't. Choose now.

False choice.

The actual choice here is being a country of the rule of law or the rule of man.

Choose now. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.27  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.26    2 months ago

Then I can only assume that you support letting the criminals run free but you won't say so out loud because you know it's a reprehensible and indefensible position.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
7.2.28  Steve Ott  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    2 months ago

Trump Administration Files New Lawsuits Against Sanctuary Jurisdictions

"The King County, Washington   lawsuit   is somewhat more complicated. It challenges the County's policy of refusing to let Immigration and Customs Enforcement use the municipal airport for flights that deport immigrants. There are some complexities here related to federal aviation law, which I will leave to those more expert on the subject than I am. But the commandeering and intergovernmental immunity issues are basically similar to those in the New Jersey case. Here too, the federal government is claiming the right to coerce state and local governments into helping enforce federal law, and also claiming that refusal to help qualifies as "discrimination" against the federal government. And these claims have all the same flaws as they did in other cases where the federal government has made them.

In October, the federal government   asked the Supreme Court to take the California "sanctuary state" case , which raises much the same issue as the New Jersey case. The Trump administration   lost on this issue in the lower courts   (at the hands of both Republican and Democratic-appointed judges), and I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn those rulings. But, obviously, if it does, that would have major implications for the New Jersey litigation  and other similar cases.

If the administration somehow manages to win these cases, it would s et a dangerous precedent that goes far beyond immigration policy , creating a road map for federal coercion of states and local governments that can be used on many issues. Those on the right who now cheer Trump's efforts to coerce sanctuary cities may not be so happy when future Democratic presidents use similar tactics on issues such as gun control, education, or  the "Green New Deal."   Particularly in our highly polarized era , Americans with a wide range of ideological commitments have   good reason   to support strong judicial enforcement of constitutional limits on federal power over state and local governments."

I suppose if you don't stand for freedom, a little coercion isn't so bad.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.29  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.25    2 months ago
Why are you dodging the central issue? You either want illegal alien criminals walking the streets of America or you want to get rid of them. Which do you choose? Choose now and end the bullshit.

It must be proven that they are illegal AND that they are criminals first.

That is the law.

It is also the law that holding someone beyond their release date is illegal UNLESS there is evidence to hold them and NO MORE than 48 hours. ICE usurps that time limit the vast majority of the time and then leaves local municipalities and county/state governments holding the bag for the cost of detentions. There of a ton of studies, one in Georgia that documented that the state spends about 1.5 million a year on immigration detentions, MANY for people who would normally just get a ticket and MOST of whom have NOT been convicted of ANYTHING. 

The Feds are blowing off the cost just like Trump does when he leaves localities holding the bag for the cost of policing his rallies. They are both large scale grifters and local taxpayers are left paying the bills and needing to cut other services. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.30  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.27    2 months ago
Then I can only assume that you support letting the criminals run free but you won't say so out loud because you know it's a reprehensible and indefensible position.

You be you Tacos!. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.2.26    2 months ago
The actual choice here is being a country of the rule of law or the rule of man.

Our current laws state that an illegal alien is subject to deportation. 

Why would anyone who professes to support the rule of law want illegal aliens roaming about the country?

What exactly is the point of states or counties or cities passing sanctuary policies which put the well-being of American citizens at risk?

And why do so many on the left cheer for that crap?

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.32  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.29    2 months ago
blah blah irrelevant blah blah

Just answer the very simple question or move on. Posting a bunch of platitudes or irrelevant "facts" is just an evasion tactic.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.33  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.30    2 months ago
You be you Tacos!.

People get murdered or raped and you treat it like it's a fucking game. You be you, I guess.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.31    2 months ago
Our current laws state that an illegal alien is subject to deportation. 

AFTER they get a hearing. You know, that whole innocent until proven guilty thingy. 

Why would anyone who professes to support the rule of law want illegal aliens roaming about the country?

Why would anyone continue to post that ridiculous strawman? 

What exactly is the point of states or counties or cities passing sanctuary policies which put the well-being of American citizens at risk?

There is a very good argument that sanctuary cities are MORE safe for US citizens. The immigrant community cooperating with LEOs is one of them. 

And why do so many on the left cheer for that crap?

I only speak for myself Tex. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.35  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.32    2 months ago
blah blah irrelevant blah blah
Just answer the very simple question or move on. Posting a bunch of platitudes or irrelevant "facts" is just an evasion tactic.

It may surprise you that I need not accept YOUR either or FALSE choices nor your FALSE charactorizations. Live with it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.36  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.33    2 months ago
People get murdered or raped and you treat it like it's a fucking game.

What brought you to that utterly hyperbolic and unfounded conclusion? 

You be you, I guess.

Always. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.37  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.2.34    2 months ago
AFTER they get a hearing. You know, that whole innocent until proven guilty thingy. 

Well, of course after a hearing. I certainly didn't suggest otherwise, and don't see where anyone else did, either. Leave it to you to argue something no one claimed. Why do you do that so often?

Why would anyone continue to post that ridiculous strawman?

Seems like it becomes a strawman every time there is a tough question someone doesn't want to answer.

There is a very good argument that sanctuary cities are MORE safe for US citizens. The immigrant community cooperating with LEOs is one of them. 

There is a very good argument against sanctuary cities, counties, and states. I am sure the victims of illegal alien crimes are just thrilled to hear that other illegal aliens are cooperating with law enforcement. I wonder when illegal aliens will be stand-up enough to cooperate with ICE.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.38  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.37    2 months ago
Well, of course after a hearing. 

Right, so you support releasing them until their hearing. /s 

Seriously Tex, WHY should they be held in JAIL until ICE gets around to picking them up and then in DETENTION for who the fuck knows how long before they get a hearing? Do you have ANY idea how long the immigration backlog is in this country? If they haven't been convicted of anything, they should be released with a order to appear. 

Oh and PLEASE spare me the 'they never show up' bullshit because that has been debunked. 

Leave it to you to argue something no one claimed. Why do you do that so often?

This from the strawman king. 

Seems like it becomes a strawman every time there is a tough question someone doesn't want to answer.

You're all about not arguing something no one claimed right?

YOU would NEVER do that yourself right? 

So unless you're a hypocrit, here is where you PROVE that I stated that I wanted illegal aliens roaming about the country. Post the comment number where I said that Tex. 

I'll wait. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.39  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.36    2 months ago
What brought you to that utterly hyperbolic and unfounded conclusion? 

1. There are documented cases of illegal aliens murdering or raping people and the crimes could have been avoided if local authorities had cooperated with ICE to deport them.

2. You continue to play the usual games of distorting what people have said, arguing straw men or just general rude statements followed by pearl clutching from about you are the one being personally attacked.

Those are the things that brought me to my very reasonable conclusions. So they weren't unfounded. You have erred. Again.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.40  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.35    2 months ago
It may surprise you that I need not accept YOUR either or FALSE choices nor your FALSE charactorizations. Live with it. 

Oh believe me, no one expects you to face the truth. It's just fun shining on a light on your repeated refusal to do it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.41  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @7.2.38    2 months ago
So unless you're a hypocrit, here is where you PROVE that I stated that I wanted illegal aliens roaming about the country. Post the comment number where I said that Tex. 
I'll wait. 

No fucking need to wait. I didn't state that you wanted illegal aliens roaming about the country. 

FFS.

HERE is what I actually posted:

Why would anyone who professes to support the rule of law want illegal aliens roaming about the country?

Please take note of the FACT that I asked a question. And if you profess to support the rule of law, how could you possibly want illegal aliens roaming about? Illegal aliens are here ILLEGALLY by definition. That means they broke a law.

So once again (sigh, it is really, really old now) you claim I stated something I did not.

Why do you insist on arguing what I don't state? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.42  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @7.2.34    2 months ago
AFTER they get a hearing.

OMG that's dumb. No one here has said they couldn't get a hearing. Why the fuck are you talking about hearings??

By all means! Have a freakin hearing!

What everyone is saying is that we don't want them running free when ICE wants to see them. Usually that means they are wanted for an alleged crime, some immigration violation that warrants this level of attention, or they have been convicted of some crime. Either way, they need to be handed over to ICE and there is no justification for not doing it.

We're not talking about some hard-working, otherwise law-abiding housekeeper or gardener who was minding his/her own business. We're talking about someone who was already in the custody of law enforcement - probably for a damned good reason - and is WANTED by a federal law enforcement agency.

If it we were talking about a citizen and the FBI wanted to take custody of them, this wouldn't even be a conversation. It would just happen. But by golly we gots to protect them illegal aliens! That's super important!

I have to bang my head on a tree now. I can't believe I'm reading this nonsense.

Why would anyone continue to post that ridiculous strawman? 

Says the guy talking about hearings. Like WTF!

There is a very good argument that sanctuary cities are MORE safe for US citizens.

Not when we're talking about people already in trouble with the law.

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.43  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.42    2 months ago
OMG that's dumb. No one here has said they couldn't get a hearing. Why the fuck are you talking about hearings??

Because it is infinitely easier to debate when you frame both sides they way you want.  Why bother to debate honestly when you can claim someone says something and then argue it?

What everyone is saying is that we don't want them running free when ICE wants to see them. Usually that means they are wanted for an alleged crime, some immigration violation that warrants this level of attention, or they have been convicted of some crime. Either way, they need to be handed over to ICE and there is no justification for not doing it.

Absolutely correct. Anyone not wanting illegal aliens deported aren't honestly for law enforcement. Denials to the contrary.

We're not talking about some hard-working, otherwise law-abiding housekeeper or gardener who was minding his/her own business. We're talking about someone who was already in the custody of law enforcement - probably for a damned good reason - and is WANTED by a federal law enforcement agency

Sounds like simple common sense to me. Perhaps that is why some can't see it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.44  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.41    2 months ago

This:

Texan @ 7.2.26 jrSmiley_110_smiley_image.png Our current laws state that an illegal alien is subject to deportation.    Why would anyone who  professes to support the rule of law want illegal aliens roaming about the country?

Implies that Dulay wants illegal aliens roaming about the country.   You implied that this was Dulay's position.   You see that, right?

So now you and Dulay should be square.   You know that this is not Dulay's position, right?   

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.45  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.44    2 months ago

Thank you, but I really don't need you to explain her posts to me.

Or mine.

No offense.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.46  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.45    2 months ago

I agree.   I am (and was) convinced you knew exactly what Dulay meant.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
7.2.47  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.46    2 months ago

When people constantly claim I state things I haven't, and I call them out on it, I am extra careful to be precise in what they have actually written--especially when they pride themselves on their written eloquence. I wouldn't wish to be accused of assuming something or putting words in their mouth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.48  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @7.2.47    2 months ago

I think that is a good practice.   

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.2.49  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.21    2 months ago
It's pretty simple. You either think illegal alien criminals should be roaming the streets of America or you don't. Choose now.

It's EXTREMELY simple.  You either stay on topic, [deleted] and stop replying to my comments with made up, off topic, crap.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
7.2.50  Steve Ott  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.5    2 months ago

Barr is asking for more than that. He wants a total usurpation of local and state authority.

If the administration somehow manages to win these cases, it would s et a dangerous precedent that goes far beyond immigration policy , creating a road map for federal coercion of states and local governments that can be used on many issues. Those on the right who now cheer Trump's efforts to coerce sanctuary cities may not be so happy when future Democratic presidents use similar tactics on issues such as gun control, education, or  the "Green New Deal."   Particularly in our highly polarized era , Americans with a wide range of ideological commitments have   good reason   to support strong judicial enforcement of constitutional limits on federal power over state and local governments.

It is best to think long term, not just about the immediate want.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.3  WallyW  replied to  Steve Ott @7    2 months ago
Interfering is letting the suspect go...then calling ICE to come get them.

 
 
 
Steve Ott
7.3.1  Steve Ott  replied to  WallyW @7.3    2 months ago

Citation?

 
 
 
Ender
7.3.2  Ender  replied to  WallyW @7.3    2 months ago

Actually, it was ruled that it was against the law to hold them after release date.

Obama was forced to stop the practice.

 
 
 
Dulay
8  Dulay    2 months ago

There is so much disinformation in that article. I'll just start here, the Detainer REQUEST is just that, a request. Refusing a request is NOT a violation of ANYTHING. PERIOD full stop. 

Secondly, the article tries to pretend that the NJ law is somehow nefarious because it requires notification of the detainer. The REALITY is that ICE detainers INCLUDE a requirement, right on the fucking document, to notify the person detained, in writing, in their own language. So trying to dump that on NJ is utter bullshit. 

Finally, to all who are claiming that ICE detainers somehow prove that the person is a criminal, I ask you WTF happened to innocent until proven guilty? 

 
 
 
evilgenius
8.1  evilgenius  replied to  Dulay @8    2 months ago
WTF happened to innocent until proven guilty? 

If you're brown, poor or a Deep State Democrat you're automatically guilty of something to Alt-Righties.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
8.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @8    2 months ago
to all who are claiming that ICE detainers somehow prove that the person is a criminal,

Who claimed that? More dulay dreamed up shit?

I wasn't aware ICE threw out detainers at random, you got something to support your posit?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.1  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @8.2    2 months ago
Who claimed that? 

At least 8 members on this seed. 

More dulay dreamed up shit?

Posting personal comments from the get go I see. 

I wasn't aware ICE threw out detainers at random, you got something to support your posit?

What are you imagining my posit to be kd? I sure as hell didn't make up innocent until proven guilty out of whole clothe. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
8.2.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @8.2.1    2 months ago
At least 8 members on this seed. 

Imaginary ones?

Posting personal comments from the get go I see. 

Not personal when you make shit up. 

Show me who said that a ice detainer proves they are a criminal, I can man up and admit I'm wrong unlike some that will just start to spin and sputter.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @8.2.2    2 months ago
Imaginary ones?

Well, at the very least----unnamed ones.

Show me who said that a ice detainer proves they are a criminal, 

Looks like you have had quite a wait there. How long do you think it will end up being---if ever, of course?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.3    2 months ago
Well, at the very least----unnamed ones.

It's a CoC violation to call out members Tex. 

BTFW, the SEED alone alleges it at least 5 times. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @8.2.4    2 months ago
It's a CoC violation to call out members Tex. 

Flag it then.

BTFW, which member did I call out?

Can you quote me on that?

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.5    2 months ago
Flag it then.

BTFW, which member did I call out?

Can you quote me on that?

Wow, talk about a kneejerk reply. 

What did you say Tex?  

You said they were 'unnamed' right? 

Do you get WHY they are UNNAMED now Tex? 

Sheesh...

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @8.2.6    2 months ago
What did you say Tex?  
You said they were 'unnamed' right? 
Do you get WHY they are UNNAMED now Tex?

They are unnamed by you because they are imaginary. Once again, you claimed members stated something, (which they did not, of course) and then started to try and argue it.

Don't you remember writing this little gem?

Finally, to all who are claiming that ICE detainers somehow prove that the person is a criminal, I ask you WTF happened to innocent until proven guilty? 

No one here did that. That is WHY you were called on your bullshit. And someone asked you to name the people you claim to have said it. And, you refused or were simply (and obviously) unable to do so.

Once again, arguing exactly what NO ONE states. 

Lazy AND dishonest tactics.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @8.2.7    2 months ago

Tissue? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.2.9  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @8.2.8    2 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
8.2.10  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @8.2.4    2 months ago
It's a CoC violation to call out members Tex. 

256

the SEED alone alleges it at least 5 times. 

So you went from 8 people posting that ice detainers proved that they were criminal to the seed alleges. LMAO

Tissue? 

What you actually have some left? 

Cheers 

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @8    2 months ago
Finally, to all who are claiming that ICE detainers somehow prove that the person is a criminal

Supply the names of the people who claimed that so they can respond.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @8.3    2 months ago
Supply the names of the people who claimed that so they can respond.

More than likely just the usual tactic of claiming someone said something, and then arguing it, rather than actual facts.

 
 
 
Dulay
8.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @8.3    2 months ago

Review your own comments. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.3.3  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @8.3.1    2 months ago
More than likely just the usual tactic of claiming someone said something, and then arguing it, rather than actual facts.

I invite you to do a search of 'criminal' in this seed and READ how many people have claimed that ALLEGED that UNCONVICTED 'illegal aliens' are criminals. How about you post the names...

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @8.3.3    2 months ago
I invite you to do a search of 'criminal' in this seed and READ how many people have claimed that ALLEGED 'illegal aliens' are criminals. How about you post the names...

I have read every single post here. I don't see where anyone has suggested deporting people without due process. You are simply confused as to what they actually stated. If I am wrong, then simply prove it as you have been asked to do multiple times without success.

HOW ABOUT YOU POST THE NAMES SINCE YOU CLAIMED THEY SAID IT???

Never mind, I know and you know you can't or you would have done it by now. Yet once again, claiming people state stuff when they didn't and then arguing THAT instead of what WAS written. 

SMMFH

 
 
 
bbl-1
9  bbl-1    2 months ago

Sanctuary Cities?  Yeah, sure.  The city is The White House and it's suburbs are the GOP House and Senate.

The right wing's survival always depends on the demonization of something and somebody.

As far as Barr and Trump?  Yeah well, they respect Putin's Russia.

 
 
 
Cathar
10  Cathar    2 months ago

Roy Cohen Barr also called into disdain "progressive Prosecutors" who gave out lenient sentences. Of course he then approved a no sentence approach to tRumps friends who were convicted by a jury to up to nine years in jail What a hypocrite.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1  Texan1211  replied to  Cathar @10    2 months ago

In the real world (where most of us reside) Barr did NOT call for NO sentence. 

Can you quote him on that, or did you just make it up?

 
 
 
bbl-1
10.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1    2 months ago

"Forever Ubiquitous."  

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  bbl-1 @10.1.1    2 months ago

Likewise, I'm sure.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
11  Paula Bartholomew    2 months ago

Barr could not sweep a porch with a broom without fucking it up.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Snuffy
Texan1211
Donald J. Trump Fan #1
bbl-1
bccrane
devangelical
Kathleen
lib50
pat wilson


28 visitors