Court sides with Trump in 'sanctuary cities' grant fight

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  just-jim-nc-ttth  •  5 months ago  •  134 comments

By:   LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press

Court sides with Trump in 'sanctuary cities' grant fight
The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement grants to force states to cooperate with U.S. immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court in New York ruled Wednesday in a decision that conflicted with three other federal appeals courts.

And this court in New York nonetheless. Glorious.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned a lower court's decision ordering the administration to release funding to New York City and seven states — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.

The states and city sued the U.S. government after the Justice Department announced in 2017 that it would withhold grant money from cities and states until they gave federal immigration authorities access to jails and provide advance notice when someone in the country illegally is about to be released.
Before the change, cities and states seeking grant money were required only to show they were not preventing local law enforcement from communicating with federal authorities about the immigration status of people who were detained.
At the time, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: “So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”
The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws make clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.

And it noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.
In the past two years, federal appeals courts in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco have ruled against the federal government by upholding lower-court injunctions placed on the enforcement of some or all of the challenged conditions.
The appeals rulings pertain to the issuance of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
Created in 2006, it is the vehicle through which Congress annually dispenses over $250 million in federal funding for state and local criminal justice efforts.
The Byrne Program was named for New York City Police Officer Edward Byrne, who at age 22 was shot to death while guarding the home of a Guyanese immigrant cooperating with authorities investigating drug trafficking.


Article is Locked

smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH    5 months ago

Discuss............civilly. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    5 months ago
Discuss...........civilly.

Another OUCHY for the Trump haters !

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1.1  MAGA  replied to  It Is ME @1.1    5 months ago

I feel their pain!  🧀🍹🎉🎊

 
 
 
MAGA
1.2  MAGA  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    5 months ago

This is indeed good news.  It will be interesting here in California as cities and counties that voted themselves non sanctuary receive federal funds and others in the state don’t get any.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
1.2.1  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @1.2    5 months ago

Typically grants are applied for with no realistic expectation of being granted due to byzantine rules and regulations.

Federal grants even more so do to the "red" tape and miles of supposedly unbiased federal government workers in the chain who could influence these decisions one way or the other.

So in effect, the Feds just cut off a percentage of their workload and should be downsizing shortly.

The petitioners have gained nothing and cost "us" nothing.

Everyone wins.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1    5 months ago

Just one word on this. GOOD!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  Tessylo    5 months ago

'The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement grants to force states to cooperate with U.S. immigration enforcement'

Quid pro quo?

 
 
 
Jasper2529
2.2  Jasper2529  replied to  Tessylo @2    5 months ago
Quid pro quo?

If you want to know about quid pro quo, Joe Biden is a good person to ask. This article discusses obeying federal laws that are supported by Congress and the US Supreme Court.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3  Jasper2529    5 months ago
The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws make clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.
And it noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.

Period. Full stop.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1  Dulay  replied to  Jasper2529 @3    5 months ago
And it noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.

The dispersal of law enforcement grants is not governed by immigration policies. 

Period. Full stop.

The 3rd, 7th and 9th disagree. Period. Full stop. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @3.1    5 months ago
The dispersal of law enforcement grants is not governed by immigration policies.

Doesn't appear the 3rd,7th and 9th can read.

The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws make clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.

 
 
 
MAGA
3.1.2  MAGA  replied to  Dulay @3.1    5 months ago

No.  Full advance to the US Supreme Court.  Their Obama regime ruling in Arizona applies here. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.3  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @3.1.2    5 months ago

Which ruling is that Xx? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    5 months ago

It's such a simple thing. Let's work together to get rid of the bad guys where we can. What the feds want from local law enforcement isn't even much of a burden. It's hard to believe this is even controversial.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tacos! @4    5 months ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif       jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4    5 months ago
It's such a simple thing. Let's work together to get rid of the bad guys where we can. What the feds want from local law enforcement isn't even much of a burden. It's hard to believe this is even controversial.

The federal government burdens the states with the cost of cooperating with immigration detainers. Studies have shown that states and counties that cooperate spends millions every year that the feds refuse to reimburse. This has been ongoing for decades and only getting worse. Here's an article about Georgia:

https://gbpi.org/2018/voluntary-immigration-enforcement-a-costly-choice-for-georgia-communities/
 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2    5 months ago

I'm not buying, for two reasons.

First, if we were talking about citizens - not aliens - who had been arrested and were wanted by the FBI, there is no controversy. No problem. No complaints. Local police gladly hold them until they get picked up.

Second, I have not heard any politicians advocate sanctuary cities because of costs. It's always some BS moral argument.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    5 months ago
I'm not buying, for two reasons.

I'm not selling anything, I'm just posting facts. 

First, if we were talking about citizens - not aliens - who had been arrested and were wanted by the FBI, there is no controversy. No problem. No complaints. Local police gladly hold them until they get picked up.

An FBI or any other LEO arrest warrant is signed by a Judge. See the difference? 

Second, I have not heard any politicians advocate sanctuary cities because of costs. 

Then you're not listening.

It's always some BS moral argument.

There is also the argument that local LEOs need the cooperation of immigrants in order to police their communities. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.2.3  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @4.2.2    5 months ago
I'm not selling anything, I'm just posting facts

Your so called facts are flawed, this article makes claims of all kinds of costs related to immigration enforcement, the withholding of funds is geared at not honoring detainers. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.2.2    5 months ago
There is also the argument that local LEOs need the cooperation of immigrants in order to police their communities. 

And maybe we wouldn't have some of that crime if illegal aliens were deported, instead of being coddled by sanctuary policies that harm American citizens.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.2    5 months ago
I'm not selling anything, I'm just posting facts. 

just posting irrelevant facts.

An FBI or any other LEO arrest warrant is signed by a Judge. See the difference? 

Nope.

Then you're not listening.

To whom?

There is also the argument that local LEOs need the cooperation of immigrants in order to police their communities.

They don't need the help of the people ICE wants to deport for being criminals. What you are talking about is a reason for local law enforcement to not investigate the status of the people they contact. That's fine. ICE wanting to deport illegal aliens who are committing crimes is a different issue.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.6  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.5    5 months ago
just posting irrelevant facts.

So you think that the link I posted about Georgia is irrelevant but your opinions aren't. Got ya. 

Nope.

Hey, I can post the facts, I can't make you understand them. 

To whom?

Politicians advocating sanctuary cities because of costs.

They don't need the help of the people ICE wants to deport for being criminals.

ICE views anyone who is undocumented as a criminal. 

What you are talking about is a reason for local law enforcement to not investigate the status of the people they contact. That's fine.

Nope, what I am talking about is the community not trusting LEOs. 

ICE wanting to deport illegal aliens who are committing crimes is a different issue.

ICE wants to deport EVERYONE who is undocumented. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.6    5 months ago
So you think that the link I posted about Georgia is irrelevant

That's what I said. You're welcome to try and prove me wrong. I doubt you will.

Hey, I can post the facts, I can't make you understand them.

You would have to understand them yourself first.

Politicians advocating sanctuary cities because of costs.

For the second time: Like who?

Nope, what I am talking about is the community not trusting LEOs. 

Yeah. Like I said. That's not relevant to the situation.

ICE wants to deport EVERYONE who is undocumented.

It is well known that they are prioritizing the deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes.

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.2.8  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.2.6    5 months ago

"ICE views anyone who is undocumented as a criminal. "

Anyone who is undocumented IS a criminal! They have broken immigration laws, that makes them criminals.

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.2.9  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @4.2.6    5 months ago

"ICE wants to deport EVERYONE who is undocumented. "

That's their job 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @4.2.9    5 months ago
That's their job 

Why does that even have to be explained?

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.11  pat wilson  replied to  arkpdx @4.2.8    5 months ago
Anyone who is undocumented IS a criminal! They have broken immigration laws, that makes them criminals.

It is not that simple. Legal experts say unlawful presence in the US by itself is not a crime in most cases. It is, however, a civil violation that puts the person at risk of being deported, a lengthy process.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44830142

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.7    5 months ago
That's what I said. You're welcome to try and prove me wrong. I doubt you will.

Since your opinion isn't based on facts, it isn't worth my time. 

You would have to understand them yourself first.

I understand them perfectly, that's why I posted them. 

For the second time: Like who?

I've already posted the SF code on this seed. READ it. 

Yeah. Like I said. That's not relevant to the situation.

Again, an uninformed and unsubstantiated opinion. 

It is well known that they are prioritizing the deportation of illegal aliens who commit crimes.

It is well known that Trump's minions are liars. 

The VAST majority of those that are deported have NOT committed crimes. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.2.13  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @4.2.6    5 months ago
ICE views anyone who is undocumented as a criminal.

all illegals are breaking our laws and should be deported.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.14  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.2.13    5 months ago
all illegals are breaking our laws and should be deported.

Physical presence in the US without proper authorization is a CIVIL misdemeanor, NOT a 'criminal' offense. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.2.14    5 months ago
Physical presence in the US without proper authorization is a CIVIL misdemeanor, NOT a 'criminal' offense. 

That is true.

It is ALSO true that reentering the US after being deported or removed is a felony.

Pretty sure that illegal aliens in jail in local or state jurisdictions are there for some reason OTHER than illegal entry.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.16  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.1    5 months ago
First, if we were talking about citizens - not aliens - who had been arrested and were wanted by the FBI, there is no controversy. No problem. No complaints. Local police gladly hold them until they get picked up.

The FBI does not issue non judicial detainers like ICE, the FBI usually gets a warrant signed by a judge but

FBI "Special Agents" can simply arrest someone without a warrant. They do not need to ask State or County officials to  hold someone.  Holding anyone beyond there sentence is a civil rights violation which unlike ICE, the FBI would never do.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.2.12    5 months ago
Since your opinion isn't based on facts, it isn't worth my time.

HA Ha HA Ha. We're not talking about my opinion. You post the facts with implied claim that they're relevant to the topic. It's up to you prove they're relevant.

I've already posted the SF code on this seed.

Again, you're random "facts" don't say anything relevant. For the third time: Which specific politicians are advocating for sanctuary cities because they object to the costs involved in helping ICE?

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.18  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.16    5 months ago
Holding anyone beyond there sentence

It's not necessary to hold anyone beyond their sentence if you give ICE enough notice to come get them. It's also not the reason for sanctuary cities. I have never heard any politician say they supported sanctuary cities for that reason.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.2.19  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @4.2.18    5 months ago
I have never heard any politician say they supported sanctuary cities for that reason.

You are correct, usually administrations of municipalities state, like Philadelphia, something like,  "that would erode community-police cooperation and prevent people from coming forward as victims or witnesses of crimes. Enforcing immigration law is the job of federal officers, not local police, city officials have said."

But lawsuits by municipalities against ICE are always about the $$.

PA is a very mixed bag of cooperation with ICE, by contract in many cases.  Of PA's 67 counties, 19 have contracts with ICE.  Many more, like Bucks & Montgomery cooperate with weekly or daily reports, but will not honor detainers beyond the prisoners release date.  What happens outside the jail is ICE's business.

ICE recently "settled" with Philadelphia County over arresting people coming out of traffic court etc where they were involved in civil matters as defendants or witnesses or paying parking tickets.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/ice-immigration-sanctuary-pennsylvania-juntos-temple-university-20190625.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/no-cooperation-with-ice-montgomerys-new-ban-is-strongest-in-dc-region/2019/07/22/46b85870-ac7d-11e9-a0c9-6d2d7818f3da_story.html

https://wtop.com/maryland/2020/02/maryland-lawmakers-consider-so-called-sanctuary-state-bill/

 
 
 
Dulay
4.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.15    5 months ago
Pretty sure that illegal aliens in jail in local or state jurisdictions are there for some reason OTHER than illegal entry.

Since all the bitching is about them being RELEASED, your comment is moot. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  Split Personality @4.2.19    5 months ago
that would erode community-police cooperation and prevent people from coming forward as victims or witnesses of crimes

That policy, from a policing perspective, is a smart one, I think, but it has always meant that local cops don't investigate a person's immigration status. That has been policy in several big cities for decades.

Sanctuary cities, though, are a newer idea, and generally a whole different thing. We're talking about people already being held for committing some regular crime and there is an existing request from ICE along the lines of "if you have this guy in custody already, let us know so we can come get him and remove him." I just don't have a problem with that.

Arguments supporting the concept of sanctuary cities all seem to be based on some kind of morality that says deporting anyone - no matter how much of a public menace they are - is wrong. I see no sense in that.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.2.22  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @4.2.20    5 months ago
Since all the bitching is about them being RELEASED, your comment is moot. 

There is such a thing as posting bail.............jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpgjrSmiley_16_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @4.2.20    5 months ago
Since all the bitching is about them being RELEASED, your comment is moot. 

Thanks for not paying attention.

I'm shocked!

/S

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5  1stwarrior    5 months ago

Someone needs to tell Sotomayer that these are the cases this administration are trying to push to the forefront - adherence to the law.  Funny, that's what SCOTUS is supposed to handle first and foremost.

Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

Way to go 2nd District.

 
 
 
bbl-1
6  bbl-1    5 months ago

Ha!  Court sides with the Trump.  I always knew that the 'conservative mantra' of States Rights was a bunch of bs.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1  1stwarrior  replied to  bbl-1 @6    5 months ago

States can not dictate Immigration law.  They HAVE TO adhere to Fed law.  They can make laws that are more stringent, but, in no way, can they weaken a Fed law without receiving an exemption from Congress - which Congress has not issued to any state regarding Immigration law.

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1    5 months ago

Why can't states dictate their own immigration laws?  They certainly are permitted to dictate their own laws concerning CHOICE.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.2  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1    5 months ago
States can not dictate Immigration law.  They HAVE TO adhere to Fed law.  They can make laws that are more stringent, but, in no way, can they weaken a Fed law without receiving an exemption from Congress - which Congress has not issued to any state regarding Immigration law.

Can you site what federal law mandates that states enforce immigration laws that you are claiming that they HAVE to adhere to? 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.3  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.1    5 months ago
They certainly are permitted to dictate their own laws concerning CHOICE.

They can only try. Period. Roe v. Wade is going nowhere.......lame, emotionally charged comment.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.1    5 months ago

Give an example of those "choices".

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.5  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1.2    5 months ago

Recommend you conduct your own research.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  bbl-1 @6.1.1    5 months ago

Okay lets double down then.  

If states can dictate their own immigration laws then they should be able to dictate laws concerning choice or any other Federal law that may come around like weapons bans.   You can't have your cake and eat it to.  

So what's it going to be?

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.7  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.5    5 months ago
Recommend you conduct your own research.

So your answer to my question is no. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.8  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.6    5 months ago
If states can dictate their own immigration laws then they should be able to dictate laws concerning choice or any other Federal law that may come around like weapons bans.   You can't have your cake and eat it to.   So what's it going to be?

Standing "O" jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.6    5 months ago
Okay lets double down then.

Let's.

 If states can dictate their own immigration laws then they should be able to dictate laws concerning choice or any other Federal law that may come around like weapons bans. 

First of all, many states have tried to dictate their own immigration laws and the vast majority of them are to mandate state enforcement of federal laws. Think the AZ law that was mostly struck down by the SCOTUS. 

You can't have your cake and eat it to.

That's ironic because the 2 A supporters sure as hell want it both ways.  

So what's it going to be?

It should be that the Feds stop demanding that states provide them with manpower and funding to enforce Federal laws. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.3    5 months ago
They can only try. Period. Roe v. Wade is going nowhere.......lame, emotionally charged comment.

Yes they can only try, and try, and try, all the while causing millions to be spent for and against in every state. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.11  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @6.1.9    5 months ago
It should be that the Feds stop demanding that states provide them with manpower and funding to enforce Federal laws

yeaaaah. That 48 hour hold, at least here in NC, is such a financial and resource burden. /s

From the article seeded...............

"Created in 2006, it is the vehicle through which Congress annually dispenses over $250 million in federal funding for state and local criminal justice efforts.
 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.12  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @6.1.10    5 months ago
all the while causing millions to be spent for and against in every state. 

ejemplo por favor. Y no incluya protestas en ninguno de los lados

 
 
 
zuksam
6.1.13  zuksam  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.11    5 months ago
yeaaaah. That 48 hour hold, at least here in NC, is such a financial and resource burden. /s

I'm sure holding them and turning them over to the Feds is cheaper than dealing with these criminals in the state courts, prisons, and probation/parole. It's not about money it's about Votes and they want their Illegals to feel safe and secure enough to vote.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.14  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @6.1.9    5 months ago

Lets answer the question directly first please.   Even though it wasn't asked of you.    States rights or no states rights?   That was the question.   No picking out only the marbles you want out of the bag.   You get all or nothing.

Then you can start with the endless rationalizations that support your preferred narratives.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.14    5 months ago
States rights or no states rights?  

First of all, you didn't ask that question of anyone. 

Secondly, I know how you and your fellow travelers hate it but there are grey areas. A state can pass an unconstitutional law. They do it all the time. That is why we have a SCOTUS. 

So like the AZ law, part of it was repealed and part of it was upheld. Grey area...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.16  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  zuksam @6.1.13    5 months ago
Votes and they want their Illegals to feel safe and secure enough to vote.

While maybe not votes, but I wouldn't dismiss it, but it sure got our present Democrat sheriff elected as he ran on NOT observing the 287g program. And, he has let a few go with disastrous results. Hell, one of them, while "loose" had to be corralled by the S.W.A.T team. And he isn't the only sheriff in NC that thinks he is above it all. If you feel like it, Google sheriff Garry McFadden. Although a great investigator in his time, His disdain for the law in the interest of illegals not fearing deportation and therefore will not feel intimidated to report crime. While a nice thought (remember liberals = feelings over intellect disguised as the latter) several have been re-apprehended for other crimes only to be released on "bail"...............again and not held.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.17  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.11    5 months ago
yeaaaah. That 48 hour hold, at least here in NC, is such a financial and resource burden. /s

If we were just talking about 48 hours, the costs are high, but we're NOT: 

https://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2019/06/25/costs-to-taxpayers-grow-with-new-bill-to-require-locals-to-enforce-federal-immigration/ Using methods from other states and informed by national researchers, our analysis of the costs to North Carolina of enforcing collaboration with ICE finds a conservative annual cost of $7 million to local governments across the state using updated data available from 2018 ICE detainers issued in our state. When a detainer is placed on an individual, the detainer extends the length of stay in jail for up to 48 hours. These costs are associated with the fact that many individuals are held when they otherwise would have been fined, ticketed, or released pending a trial date. Researchers estimate that the average stay in detention when ICE issues a detainer request is 22 days. North Carolina data from the federal government suggests that individuals with ICE detainers are often held much longer – an averaging of 69 days. The $7 million price tag is based on the more conservative 22-day estimate of detention when ICE issues a detainer.

So you see, ICE is leaching off of your state. 

"Created in 2006, it is the vehicle through which Congress annually dispenses over $250 million in federal funding for state and local criminal justice efforts.

I'm no math genius but if each state got the same amount of that $250 million, North Carolina would only get $5 million a year and it costs them at minimum $7 million a year. I'm pretty sure that like every other state, NC relies on their share of that $250 million to cover more than just mandated detentions. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.12    5 months ago
ejemplo por favor.  Y no incluya protestas en ninguno de los lados

Bakit ka nagsusulat sa Espanyol?

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.19  Split Personality  replied to  Dulay @6.1.17    5 months ago

Happens in every jurisdiction I have lived in including PA, NJ, NC, SC, CA prior to TX

Every jurisdiction would cooperate 100% if the Feds paid for the extended detention, medical and food, etc., and guaranteed that the detainee would not sue the jurisdiction for violating their rights.

It's always about the bottom line, not a detainee's politics or immigration status.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.20  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @6.1.17    5 months ago
So you see, ICE is leaching off of your state.

So. When it comes to law enforcement spending, I don't give a damn. Hell I'll put up a couple of ICE agents at my house if it helps them...........and trust me. In the burb where I live they would have a hay day. Couple of miles down the road there is a flea market every Saturday and Sunday and it is always packed. With Hispanics. A couple of ICE vehicles in the parking lot and that place would be a ghost town.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.19    5 months ago

The lack of reimbursement isn't anything new. Here's a couple from back in 2005:

https://24ahead.com/blog/archives/002697.html

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.20    5 months ago

So in an hours time you went from it isn't a big financial or resource burden to you don't care how much it costs. Well done. 

BTW, racial profile much? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.23  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.20    5 months ago
Couple of miles down the road there is a flea market every Saturday and Sunday and it is always packed. With Hispanics. A couple of ICE vehicles in the parking lot and that place would be a ghost town.

¿Con qué frecuencia perfilas racialmente a los hispanohablantes?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.24  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.23    5 months ago
¿Con qué frecuencia perfilas racialmente a los hispanohablantes?

No seas tonto. Te garantizo que se dispersarían como cucarachas cuando se encienda la luz.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.25  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @6.1.22    5 months ago
So in an hours time you went from it isn't a big financial or resource burden to you don't care how much it costs

It isn't and I don't. What's a fucking life worth to you? What didn't you understand? And no I don't racially profile much. Do you feed yourself?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.26  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @6.1.22    5 months ago

You gonna respond to 6.1.12?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.27  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.19    5 months ago
It's always about the bottom line, not a detainee's politics or immigration status.

So now Sanctuary cities are because the fed don't pay?  Hillaryious.

1st city I looked up on there sanctuary policy has nothing to do with because the FED don't pay.

The Sanctuary Ordinance promotes public trust and cooperation.  It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations.  It helps keep our communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs. (Please note: Federally funded programs may have different rules, record-keeping, and reporting requirements.)

https://sfgov.org/oceia/sanctuary-city-ordinance-0

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.27    5 months ago
1st city I looked up on there sanctuary policy has nothing to do with because the FED don't pay.

I believe they have to resort to that argument because, really, there is no sufficient reason to support sanctuary policies.

it is an indefensible position.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.30  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.27    5 months ago
It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations.

I think the illegals are more afraid of getting the shit beat out of them if they snitch. If they aren't the ones doing the crimes, and they didn't start the fire, they have nothing to worry about. It would be rather counter productive to finish the questioning with "Thanks for the information. Now, are you a legal citizen?". And in the matter of public safety situations, their gonna hide like everyone else with survival instincts and half a brain.

That reasoning is bullshit and the sheriff here followed basically the same talking points.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.25    5 months ago
It isn't and I don't.

So $7 million isn't much and you want to spend much more. Got ya.  

What's a fucking life worth to you?

So are you saying that there are deaths happening at the Flea Market every weekend Jim? 

What didn't you understand?

Not a damn thing. 

And no I don't racially profile much.

So just against those in your area that look 'Hispanic'. 

Do you feed yourself?

Yes, you? 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.33  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.27    5 months ago
So now Sanctuary cities are because the fed don't pay?  Hillaryious.
1st city I looked up on there sanctuary policy has nothing to do with because the FED don't pay.

It would behoove you to actually review SF's sanctuary policy before you posted about it. All it would have taken is for you to click on the link to the city code. 

https://sfgov.org/oceia/sites/default/files/Documents/SF%20Admin%20Code%2012H-12I.pdf

CHAPTER 12I: CIVIL IMMIGRATION DETAINERS

SEC. 12I.1.  FINDINGS. 

The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") is responsible for enforcing the civil immigration laws. ICE's programs, including Secure Communities and its replacement, the Priority Enforcement Program ("PEP"), seek to enlist local law enforcement's voluntary cooperation and assistance in its enforcement efforts. In its description of PEP, ICE explains that all requests under PEP are for voluntary action and that any request is not an authorization to detain persons at the expense of the federal government. The federal government should not shift the financial burden of federal civil immigration enforcement, including personnel time and costs relating to notification and detention, onto local law enforcement by requesting that local law enforcement agencies continue detaining persons based on non-mandatory civil immigration detainers or cooperating and assisting with requests to notify ICE that a person will be released from local custody. It is not a wise and effective use of valuable City resources at a time when vital services are being cut.

ICE's Secure Communities program (also known as "S-Comm") shifted the burden of federal civil immigration enforcement onto local law enforcement. S-Comm came into operation after the state sent fingerprints that state and local law enforcement agencies had transmitted to the California Department of Justice ("Cal DOJ") to positively identify the arrestees and to check their criminal history. The FBI would forward the fingerprints to the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") to be checked against immigration and other databases. To give itself time to take a detainee into immigration custody, ICE would send an Immigration Detainer - Notice of Action (DHS Form I-247) to the local law enforcement official requesting that the local law enforcement official hold the individual for up to 48 hours after that individual would otherwise be released ("civil immigration detainers"). Civil Immigration detainers may be issued without evidentiary support or probable cause by border patrol agents, aircraft pilots, special agents, deportation officers, immigration inspectors, and immigration adjudication officers.  

Given that civil immigration detainers are issued by immigration officers without judicial oversight, and the regulation authorizing civil immigration detainers provides no minimum standard of proof for their issuance, there are serious questions as to their constitutionality. Unlike criminal warrants, which must be supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral magistrate, there are no such requirements for the issuance of a civil immigration detainer. Several federal courts have ruled that because civil immigration detainers and other ICE "Notice of Action" documents are issued without probable cause of criminal conduct, they do not meet the Fourth Amendment requirements for state or local law enforcement officials to arrest and hold an individual in custody. (Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Co., No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST *17 (D.Or. April 11, 2014) (finding that detention pursuant to an immigration detainer is a seizure that must comport with the Fourth Amendment). See alsoMorales v. Chadbourne, 996 F. Supp. 2d 19, 29 (D.R.I 2014); Villars v. Kubiatowski, No. 12-cv-4586 *10-12 (N.D. Ill. filed May 5, 2014).)

[snip]

 According to Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City is not reimbursed by the federal government for the costs associated with civil immigration detainers alone. The full cost of responding to a civil immigration detainer can include, but is not limited to, extended detention time, the administrative costs of tracking and responding to detainers, and the legal liability for erroneously holding an individual who is not subject to a civil immigration detainer. Compliance with civil immigration detainers and involvement in civil immigration enforcement diverts limited local resources from programs that are beneficial to the City. 

There's much more at the link but I hope even you get the gist...


 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.26    5 months ago

You gonna respond to 6.1.18? 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.35  Dulay  replied to    5 months ago
Remember the video of the lady governor of Arizona arguing with 0bama?

Remember the SCOTUS striking down the law that the lady governor signed? 

 
 
 
MAGA
6.1.36  MAGA  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1    5 months ago

Actually Obama went to the Supreme Court against Arizona to prevent their state law from being more stringent.  That ruling alone should kill Californication sanctuary laws

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.37  Dulay  replied to  MAGA @6.1.36    5 months ago
Actually Obama went to the Supreme Court against Arizona to prevent their state law from being more stringent.

The SCOTUS ruled against AZ's papers please law.  

That ruling alone should kill Californication sanctuary laws

Really? How so Xx? 

You know that AZ and CA are in different Federal Districts right? Oh and you know that  the ruling had NOTHING to do with sanctuary law right? 

Sheesh. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.38  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @6.1.33    5 months ago

Yup I certainly understand do you?

Sanctuary cities did not claim sanctuary status because the Government doesn't pay, I posted their own words, so no matter how much you try to spin and sputter it doesn't refute what there own web page says.

Cheers 

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.39  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.27    5 months ago

From your link...

https://sfgov.org/oceia/sanctuary-city-ordinance-0

12H.1. CITY AND COUNTY OF REFUGE. It is hereby affirmed that the City and County of San Francisco is a City and County of Refuge. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89) SEC. 12H.2. USE OF CITY FUNDS PROHIBITED. No department, agency, commission, officer, or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of Federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding release status of individuals or any other such personal information as defined in Chapter 12I in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by Federal or State statute, regulation, or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Chapter 12H shall include, but shall not be limited to: (a) Assisting or cooperating, in one's official capacity, with any investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, conducted by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law and relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the Federal immigration law, except as permitted under Administrative Code Section 12I.3. (b) Assisting or cooperating, in one's official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance, or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City and County, State, or Federal criminal laws. (c) Requesting information about, or disseminating information, in one's official capacity, regarding the release status of any individual or any other such personal information as defined in Chapter 12I, except as permitted under Administrative Code Section 12I.3, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City and County of San Francisco upon immigration status, except as required by Federal or State statute or regulation, City and County public assistance criteria, or court decision. (d) Including on any application, questionnaire, or interview form used in relation to benefits, services, or opportunities provided by the City and County of San Francisco any question regarding immigration status other than those required by Federal or State statute, regulation, or court decision. Any such questions existing or being used by the City and County at the time this Chapter is adopted shall be deleted within sixty days of the adoption of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89; amended by Ord. 228-09, File No. 091032, Ap

Everything about this section affirms it is about our local tax $$$.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.40  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @6.1.37    5 months ago

 California and Arizona are in same federal circuit.

Sheesh

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.41  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.39    5 months ago
affirms it is about our local tax $$$.

No it doesn't

What is the Sanctuary Ordinance?
In 1989, San Francisco passed the "City and County of Refuge" Ordinance (also known as the Sanctuary Ordinance).  The Sanctuary Ordinance generally prohibits City employees from using City funds or resources to assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in the enforcement of Federal immigration law unless such assistance is required by federal or state law.
In 2013, San Francisco passed the “Due Process for All” Ordinance. This ordinance limits when City law enforcement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person’s release from local jail. It also prohibits cooperation with ICE detainer requests, sometimes referred to as “ICE holds.” 
These ordinances were last amended in July 2016.
In 2013, San Francisco passed the “Due Process for All” Ordinance. This ordinance limits when City law enforcement officers may give ICE advance notice of a person’s release from local jail. It also prohibits cooperation with ICE detainer requests, sometimes referred to as “ICE holds.” 
These ordinances were last amended in July 2016. Under current law, City employees may not use City resources to:
 Assist or cooperate with any ICE investigation, detention, or arrest relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of federal immigration law.
 Ask about immigration status on any application for City benefits, services, or opportunities, except as required by federal or state statute, regulation, or court decision.
 Limit City services or benefits based on immigration status, unless required by federal or state statute or regulation, public assistance criteria, or court decision.
 Provide information about the release status or personal information of any individual, except in limited circumstances when law enforcement may respond to ICE requests for notification about when an individual will be released from custody.
 Detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody.

And from my link. SF own words why they adjusted their Sanctuary city status. 

2. Why did San Francisco adopt the Sanctuary Ordinance?
The Sanctuary Ordinance promotes public trust and cooperation.  It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations.  It helps keep our communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs.

So spin and sputter all you want, Take it up with SF on why THEY said the ordinance was adopted. 

[deleted] "Why did San Francisco adopt the Sanctuary Ordinance?" It doesn't say why SP thinks we adopted the Sanctuary ordinance

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.42  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.40    5 months ago

My bad, I thought it was Utah. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6.1.43  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @6.1.9    5 months ago
That's ironic because the 2 A supporters sure as hell want it both ways.

compare apples to lug bolts much? LOL

  • citizens of this country have a right to bear arms.
  • illegals do not have a right to be here.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.1.44  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.24    5 months ago

In my neck of the desert on the AZ/Mexicio border there is a word for sanctuary city supporters. They are known as "Pendejos"!

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.45  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.41    5 months ago

No citation?  No link?  Very poor form...

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.46  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.41    5 months ago

Yes, in fact it does. Your link very clearly includes this link.

[ Sanctuary Ordinance: SF Admin Code Chapter 12H and 12I – English ]

Go Fish...

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.47  Split Personality  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.44    5 months ago

BS, my wife has been calling me that for years, LMAO !!!!

Her sister calls my BIL that too,

me, once every New Years, lol, with love, of course.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.48  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.45    5 months ago
No citation?  No link?  Very poor form...

Yeah. My original post has it. I'm sure you ignored it because it didn't conform to your talking points.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.49  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.46    5 months ago
Frequently Asked Questions

2. Why did San Francisco adopt the Sanctuary Ordinance?

The Sanctuary Ordinance promotes public trust and cooperation.  It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations.  It helps keep our communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs. (Please note: Federally funded programs may have different rules, record-keeping, and reporting requirements.)

From my original posted link which is the official web page of the city of San Francisco. Take note Not one mention of because the Fed didn't pay. Maybe you should contact them and have them change their Web page so you can be right?

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.50  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @6.1.15    5 months ago

First of all, the question was asked.   No debate about it.

Second of all, try not to deflect.

Third of all, i don't need a lecture on the functions of the SCOTUS so save the lectures for someone else who needs them.

Fourth of all, it does appear you agree with states rights but i'm sure only in cases that agree with your preferred narratives.  

This is what we have come to expect from the extremes of both sides.   They want to have their cake and eat it to.

SOSDD.

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.51  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.49    5 months ago
From my original posted link which is the official web page of the city of San Francisco. Take note Not one mention of because the Fed didn't pay. Maybe you should contact them and have them change their Web page so you can be right?

Everything Dulay and I posted from 12H and 12I came from the same link that you provided from the "official web page of the city of San Francisco".

That you refuse to read it the whole document past the first paragraph or accept the financial reasons listed is your issue, no one else's.

256

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.52  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.48    5 months ago

Your original post isn't the point, nor should anyone have to guess where you pulled any block quote out of.

You cite the source each and every time.  Period.

It's both a copyright issue and a required courtesy.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.53  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.51    5 months ago
Every jurisdiction would cooperate 100% if the Feds paid for the extended detention, medical and food, etc., and guaranteed that the detainee would not sue the jurisdiction for violating their rights.

Except for San Francisco.. 

From the city of San Francisco web page.

Frequently Asked Questions

. Why did San Francisco adopt the Sanctuary Ordinance?

The Sanctuary Ordinance promotes public trust and cooperation.  It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations.  It helps keep our communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs.

Your Statement I commented to was false no matter how you try to spin and sputter your way out of it. San Francisco own reason for adopting their sanctuary ordinance is in black and white for you to read right there. It makes a whole lot of sense to label yourself a 'Sanctuary' because the Feds didn't pay only to those that are grasping at straws. 

And just for you so your feels don't get hurt...

https://sfgov.org/oceia/sanctuary-city-ordinance-0

256

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.54  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.53    5 months ago

From the page you love to link so much.

Hint. There's another link on it, within the circle, try it.

800

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.55  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6.1.43    5 months ago
compare apples to lug bolts much? LOL

Tell that to the member who posted the comment I replied to 8. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.56  1stwarrior  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.53    5 months ago

What's really striking me as being so weird are the folks on NT who totally advocate violating the law.  Guess they really don't believe in that little piece of paper called the U. S. Constitution because they're always telling us how that "portion" isn't applicable.

Really sad - really sad.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6.1.57  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @6.1.34    5 months ago
You gonna respond to 6.1.18? 

Because I can.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.58  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.50    5 months ago
First of all, the question was asked.   No debate about it.

There's this handy dandy thingy that allows you find things on a page. Any member can search for 'states rights' in this seed and see that the FIRST TIME you used that term was in your 6.1.14 reply. So it begs the question: Why lie? 


Second of all, try not to deflect.

I'm not surprised that you confuse nuance with deflection. 

Third of all, i don't need a lecture on the functions of the SCOTUS so save the lectures for someone else who needs them.

Wow, now one sentence is a lecture. Short attention span? 

Fourth of all, it does appear you agree with states rights but i'm sure only in cases that agree with your preferred narratives.  

Ditto. 

This is what we have come to expect from the extremes of both sides.   They want to have their cake and eat it to.
SOSDD.

So do those in the middle. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.59  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.56    5 months ago
What's really striking me as being so weird are the folks on NT who totally advocate violating the law.  Guess they really don't believe in that little piece of paper called the U. S. Constitution because they're always telling us how that "portion" isn't applicable. Really sad - really sad.

Actually what's really sad is that some have no fucking clue what they're talking about but they just keep repeating it over and over. 

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about immigration. The ONLY "portion" that even comes close is Article 1, Section 8 and that is about NATURALIZATION. So unless you can point to 'folks on NT' who 'totally advocate' for violating THAT "portion" of the Constitution, your comment is utterly unfounded and indefensible. 

Perhaps you should have followed your own mandate and done your own research. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.60  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @6.1.59    5 months ago

Article I, Section 8, The Congress shall have Power 4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . .

Article [X] (Amendment 10 - Reserved Powers)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If you actually KNEW what those words and phrases meant, you wouldn't be involved in this discussion.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.61  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.1.57    5 months ago

आपके लिए अच्छा है. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
6.1.62  Split Personality  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.56    5 months ago

That little piece of paper guarantees the same rights to everyone on our soil.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.63  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.60    5 months ago
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It sure looks like that supports the right to legislate sanctuary cities/states. 

If you actually KNEW what those words and phrases meant, you wouldn't be involved in this discussion.

I KNOW exactly what the words and phrases mean 1st. For instance, the word naturalization does NOT mean the same thing as the word immigration.

In short, Article 1, Section 8 isn't about immigration. 

Immigration law is NOT Constitutionally enumerated, it's statutory. 

I'll refrain from making a personal comment about your worthiness to be involved in this discussion. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.64  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.62    5 months ago

Not quite but due process, equal protection and habeas corpus are pretty substantial rights. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
6.1.65  bbl-1  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.4    5 months ago

Visit Ohio.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.66  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @6.1.33    5 months ago
There's much more at the link but I hope even you get the gist...

Why yes there is, much more than the 100% of the reason for Sanctuary laws is because the FED don't pay, I hope even YOU can get the gist..... 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.67  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @6.1.58    5 months ago
There's this handy dandy thingy that allows you find things on a page. Any member can search for 'states rights' in this seed and see that the FIRST TIME you used that term was in your 6.1.14 reply. So it begs the question: Why lie?

Lol you do love to your little word games don't you?   With a modicum of reading comprehension one can clearly understand the question WAS asked in 6.1.6.   You don't think it was and i really don't care what you think.   Not in the least.

I'm not surprised that you confuse nuance with deflection

I'm not surprised that you would attempt to deflect from your deflection.   Classic considering the source.

Wow, now one sentence is a lecture

Wow!   Yes!   

Ditto.

Now there is a pithy comeback.

So do those in the middle. 

Nope, not even close.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.68  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.66    5 months ago
Why yes there is, much more than the 100% of the reason for Sanctuary laws is because the FED don't pay, I hope even YOU can get the gist..... 

Do you think that trying to put words in my mouth somehow makes your point? 

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.69  Sparty On  replied to  Dulay @6.1.68    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
6.1.70  Dulay  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.67    5 months ago
Lol you do love to your little word games don't you?  

Nowhere near as much as you it seems. You said:

First of all, the question was asked.   No debate about it.

With a modicum of reading comprehension one can clearly understand the question WAS asked in 6.1.6. You don't think it was and i really don't care what you think.   Not in the least.

[deleted]

 
 
 
devangelical
7  devangelical    5 months ago

big f'n deal, a grant, how about just pay the f'n bills. trump's ICE bullshit was already exposed here. he wanted to have state and local LE do all the legwork and paperwork, provide room and board, security and transportation, only to get stiffed on all the costs involved (gee, that sounds familiar) and then local LE gets blamed for turning alleged foreign criminals loose, even after notifying local feds prior about the who's, where's, and when's releases. is that cheap, arrogant, forgetful, or lazy? probably the same bs elsewhere. fuck that and fuck them. pay up or stfu. I thought that was a basic conservative concept.

also our state and local retaliation against trump's supporters employing undocumented workers would be immediate and financially devastating to them. the building season for infrastructure here is short, and no national contractor was ever considering the possibility of labor shortages in this economy on major state construction projects. fun times when the financial penalty phases of missing performance deadlines become harsh financial reality, in the summer of an election year, after millions were spent to court a certain demographic that would then know of friends or relatives that were being deported. looks like time to step back, reload, and aim for the other foot.

face the f'n music conservatives, the US immigration mess will not be solved until the people that invited them here and have facilitated their continued employment, instead of hiring Americans, get out their f'n checkbooks and then pay the entire tab of whatever fate is decided by the house and senate, and then signed by a hypocritical POS in the white house that has also knowingly hired undocumented workers. good luck with that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
7.1  Sparty On  replied to  devangelical @7    5 months ago

[Deleted]

[F'n do a]

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
7.1.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sparty On @7.1    5 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2  KDMichigan  replied to  devangelical @7    5 months ago

It's amazing on how all the talking points now are that sanctuary cities came about because the FED doesn't pay. But golly gee willikers if you look at the sanctuary cities law it doesn't same a damn thing about that. They are all about creating a safe space for illegal voters.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.1  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.2    5 months ago
But golly gee willikers if you look at the sanctuary cities law it doesn't same a damn thing about that. 

But golly gee willikers, you can't be talking about the law KD because it says TONS about the Feds not paying. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.2.1    5 months ago

From San Francisco own web page 

https://sfgov.org/oceia/sanctuary-city-ordinance-0

Frequently Asked Questions

2. Why did San Francisco adopt the Sanctuary Ordinance?

The Sanctuary Ordinance promotes public trust and cooperation.  It helps keep our communities safe by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable calling the Police and Fire Departments during emergencies and cooperating with City agencies during public safety situations.  It helps keep our communities healthy by making sure that all residents, regardless of immigration status, feel comfortable accessing City public health services and benefit programs. 

Maybe you and SP should start a petition to change San Francisco's own web page to conform to your made up talking points?

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.3  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.2.2    5 months ago
Maybe you and SP should start a petition to change San Francisco's own web page to conform to your made up talking points?

Maybe you should acknowledge that the quotes that both SP and I posted are from the link that YOU posted, NOT 'made up talking points'. Your demand that only to parts of the link that fit your agenda are relevant is bullshit. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.2.3    5 months ago
Your demand that only to parts of the link that fit your agenda are relevant is bullshit. 

The only bullshit is what you are spreading. You and your fellow 'traveler' cherry picked one part to prop up SP's 100% claim all while ignoring all the other reasons for a sanctuary city.  

'Uh huh, yep Sanctuary cities would cooperate 100% if Fed paid on time, That's why  we call ourselves Sanctuary's' yuck yuck yuck

256

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.5  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.2.2    5 months ago

Maybe you should read the all of the information at the link instead of just the crib notes. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.6  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.2.5    5 months ago
Maybe you should read the all of the information at the link instead of just the crib notes. 

Are you referring to the information you cherry picked to bolster SP claim that 100% of the reason for sanctuary cities is because the FED don't pay? That information Dulay? Fucking Hillaryious.

256

No where did I state that wasn't part of the reason, no matter how you spin and sputter it is not 100% of the reason but you just go ahead and keep selling that talking point ignoring all the facts.

[ deleted ]

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.7  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.2.4    5 months ago
The only bullshit is what you are spreading. You and your fellow 'traveler' cherry picked one part to prop up SP's 100% claim all while ignoring all the other reasons for a sanctuary city.  

Actually KD, SP and I proved that that is what YOU did. 


'Uh huh, yep Sanctuary cities would cooperate 100% if Fed paid on time, That's why  we call ourselves Sanctuary's' yuck yuck yuck

I didn't say that did I KD? 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.8  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @7.2.6    5 months ago
Are you referring to the information you cherry picked to bolster SP claim that 100% of the reason for sanctuary cities is because the FED don't pay? That information Dulay? Fucking Hillaryious.

Since YOU are the only one claiming anything is 100%, NO. 

No where did I state that wasn't part of the reason, no matter how you spin and sputter it is not 100% of the reason but you just go ahead and keep selling that talking point ignoring all the facts.
You be you.

Actually, you DID:

But golly gee willikers if you look at the sanctuary cities law it doesn't same a damn thing about that. They are all about creating a safe space for illegal voters.

That was YOU right KD? 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.10  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.2.7    5 months ago
Actually KD, SP and I proved that that is what YOU did. 

You did? Hmmm I Cherry picked responding to SP post....

Every jurisdiction would cooperate 100% if the Feds paid for the extended detention, medical and food, etc. https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/49596/court-sides-with-trump-in-sanctuary-cities-grant-fight#cm1262156

Not my words. 

Have fun being you...

 
 
 
Texan1211
8  Texan1211    5 months ago

Good for the court!

About time a little sanity prevailed.

Why WOULDN'T any state want to help the feds enforce immigration laws and protect their US citizens?

I refuse to live in a state that panders to illegal aliens and encourages more illegal aliens to come here.

The fact that this is even a topic for discussion shows how far left the left has become.

Putting the wants of illegal criminal aliens over the safety of their own US citizen constituents. And those folks supporting these stupid-ass politicians pushing these insane policies deserve what they get.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
8.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @8    5 months ago
Why WOULDN'T any state want to help the feds enforce immigration laws and protect their US citizens?

obviously they have a separate agenda.

politicians pushing these insane policies deserve what they get.

yepp.

take note of the people who support illegals and then watch them claim to be patriots saving the country tomorrow.

 
 
 
evilgenius
9  evilgenius    5 months ago

So 1 in 4. Interesting... This won't be decided this year, but it will be debated A LOT!.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10  Texan1211    5 months ago

How can any self-respecting American citizen be for illegal aliens and put Americans at risk?

How can any self-respecting American support violating law?

Wish those wanting to live with illegal aliens would simply move their asses to one of the countries that the illegal aliens came from. I am sure those countries would love for them to come illegally, stay illegally, and work illegally in their countries, right?

 
 
 
JumpDrive
11  JumpDrive    5 months ago

The drug cartels have virtually unlimited money; they have operatives all over the US. Without sanctuary laws the 10 million+ illegals could be conscripted into their service. This is exactly why the LA Police Department proposed the sanctuary law concept. It would allow people in the community to come forward and expose the really bad guys. Sanctuary laws are not some liberal creation.

Really bad guys are jailed and prosecuted, they are not released into the community. But, you cannot implement the sanctuary concept in a half-assed fashion. If you can be deported because you have parking tickets, or just arbitrarily because someone doesn’t like you, then no one will come forward. One of the main reasons these people left South American countries is because they and their kids were being conscripted into the service of the cartels; the police could not protect them. These laws have greatly reduced crime in our cities. These laws protect Americans. The major drawback is that these laws can be demagogued by conservatives who couldn’t care less about the effects of their stupidity on city crime rates.

Conservatives always want simple solutions to complex problems. Communities have to operate in the real world. In the real world, minimizing the murderous power of the cartels outweighs the negative effects of sanctuary laws. Conservatives demagogue sanctuary laws for the same reason they demagogue the Trump wall. Their simple base understands how walls work. It doesn’t matter that no congressional district on the southern border supports the wall. It doesn’t matter that a wall is a 3rd century solution to a 21st century problem. It’s simply beyond them to understand why sanctuary laws exist, just as it’s beyond them to understand that a wall is a moronic waste of money.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
11.1  seeder  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JumpDrive @11    5 months ago
It would allow people in the community to come forward and expose the really bad guys.

And then when the court date comes and they need that witness to testify...............**POOF** they won't show up. Too dangerous to be the one who blew the whistle.

Really bad guys are jailed and prosecuted, they are not released into the community.

Not if they post bail.

If you can be deported because you have parking tickets, or just arbitrarily because someone doesn’t like you, then no one will come forward.

And, for reasons already stated, they may NOT come forward at all. And I doubt a parking ticket, unless the car is not up to date on the registration or insurance requirements, it's pretty much tickets and not arrest anyway.

One of the main reasons these people left South American countries is because they and their kids were being conscripted into the service of the cartels

If you don't think the cartels are still in their lives and neighborhoods, you are going to be sadly mistaken. Why do you think that illegals seem to flock to the same neighborhoods? They have to fit in wherever they may be. Once the cartels find out they are illegal, they will threaten and control whole neighborhoods with threats of being reported or just plain abused.

The major drawback is that these laws can be demagogued by conservatives who couldn’t care less about the effects of their stupidity on city crime rates.

Crime rates are high no matter what and, once again for reasons stated, the "I din see nuthin' man" or just plain not coming forward at all will rule the day.

Conservatives always want simple solutions to complex problems

While liberals and progressives just throw money at it and use the 5 most dangerous words ever spoken (taken from an old cancer commercial) "maybe it will go away".

It doesn’t matter that no congressional district on the southern border supports the wall. It doesn’t matter that a wall is a 3rd century solution to a 21st century problem.

And yet no liberals propose any remedy except to turn the other cheek. Just what is your solution to this "21st century problem"? Just open up the border and everyone can just squat where they want to?

It’s simply beyond them to understand why sanctuary laws exist,

If it's for the reasons you have put forth, you have neglected human nature. It's a feel good solution just like most things and although you will probably point to crime stats, there is no way to know if the sanctuary policies indeed were an aid to said reduction. Here in the Charlotte area, most illegal activity is infiltrated by local and/or state (and sometimes federal) law enforcement. Not from information gleaned from the populace.

just as it’s beyond them to understand that a wall is a moronic waste of money.

Tell it to Israel and Syria........................they beg to differ.

Have a good day now and, on a side note, moderators.....................never mind.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




loki12
Greg Jones
Bob Nelson
Sean Treacy
MonsterMash
Gazoo
Gordy327


43 visitors