74% of Californians do not support Sanctuary City policies according to UC Berkeley Poll (tax, live in)

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

CaliRestoration,

My suggestion is not to waste your time with people that try to spin, use hyperbole, or just use conjecture. The real takeaway here is that with Trump as President, people are no longer afraid to speak their minds. And that is evident by the 74 percent of Californians that don't agree with this policy. Obviously these are not just Conservatives. This is nothing less than a repudiation of Democratic policies, even by their own party. The fact that they've lost the Presidency, the House, the Senate, multiple Governor seats, and over 900 legislative seats proves that. Sanctuary cities are going to be defunded. regardless of all the arguing from the Liberals.

True. Any party that can't see the light in front of their own faces is doomed. Senate, House, POTUS, and Supreme Court. That was the cost of their illegitimate policies. What is their strategy now?

To double down.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

CaliRestoration,

My suggestion is not to waste your time with people that try to spin, use hyperbole, or just use conjecture. The real takeaway here is that with Trump as President, people are no longer afraid to speak their minds. And that is evident by the 74 percent of Californians that don't agree with this policy. Obviously these are not just Conservatives. This is nothing less than a repudiation of Democratic policies, even by their own party. The fact that they've lost the Presidency, the House, the Senate, multiple Governor seats, and over 900 legislative seats proves that. Sanctuary cities are going to be defunded. regardless of all the arguing from the Liberals.

Originally Posted by USDefault

The Democratic party is done.

Inflammatory topics are fun for certain types of people. But this topic is about 74% of Californians opinion of sanctuary policies in their cities. It isnt about who lost an election or whether one party is doomed. Or even who is liberal. A substantial number of people, both conservative and liberal and including top level law enforcement, who actually understand the topic support the sanctuary position. Support isn't really based in supposed liberal tears. Its based on practical benefits to law and order and avoidance of illegal enforcement actions contradicting the federal laws themselves and thereby opening local municipalities to crippling lawsuits.

Readers might want to consider that while "illegal" immigration is obviously illegal and therefore without respect or standing, so is "illegal" detention. Applying illegal detention according to the laws of the land does not become ok simply in the case of attempting to determine legal presence. Numerous legal challenges and lawsuits have proven this and proven very expensive.

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

A substantial number of people, both conservative and liberal and including top level law enforcement, who actually understand the topic support the sanctuary position.

Apparently not in California...

[Independentthinking]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Apparently not in California...

Eh, let him enjoy his little fantasy world. They're going to be de-funded and all the whining in the world is not going to stop it. This is what happens when you think you are above the law.

[Perma Bear]

Originally Posted by Independentthinking

Eh, let him enjoy his little fantasy world. They're going to be de-funded and all the whining in the world is not going to stop it. This is what happens when you think you are above the law.

Defunded? They're being fueled by million dollar house property tax numbers. If anything the us is jealous they can't make that kind of income.

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

What? Who cares if there are dozens of sanctuary cities around the country? There are thousands of meth houses in the State of California. Doesn't mean they are legal or shouldn't be removed.

Trump has been very staunch in his approach towards illegal policies like Sanctuary Cities. Texas has already begun the process of with holding state funds from places that claim to be Sanctuary cities. Trumps administration has floated the idea of cutting Federal funding.

Doesn't look good for your Sanctuary City party the next 8 years.

Obviously you dont care. But you'd be well advised to understand how that reflects on your topic position.

No one said illegals shouldnt be removed either. The question is who should be and who is empowered to do the removing - and are they doing their job. The answer is the feds not state and local enforcement. And the feds are not doing their job legally if they demand that individuals be held in detention until legal status is determined. If there isno crime charged qualifying for a hold then without a valid warrant illegal detention is against the US constitution. Obtaining a warrent to investigate a crime requires bases that judges have to agree fit the circumstance.

Nice jump away from being shown that top law enforcement, including conservatives, support local sanctuary policies.

Here's more information on the topic's underlying ignorance

In Iowa, at least 26 of the state’s 99 counties are deemed sanctuaries — including some of the state’s most conservative.

After a federal appeals court ruled in 2014 that these requests — known as “detainers” — were optional, the American Civil Liberties Union alerted local sheriff’s departments that they would be subject to lawsuits if they held a citizen without a proper warrant. Nearly 300 jurisdictions nationwide, conservative and liberal, have opted not to take that risk.

Typically, the decisions that lead to a community earning sanctuary status are made without fanfare or public debate. Instead, the refusal to cooperate with ICE usually comes from a police chief, a sheriff or a government attorney — not necessarily a politician looking to extend an act of mercy toward illegal *immigrants.

Pottawattamie County Sheriff Jeff Danker, a conservative, said that he did not want his jail to keep anyone without a proper warrant. Keeping someone longer for the sake of immigration officials, he said, could be a civil rights violation.

according to Melvyn Houser, a corn and soybean farmer who serves on the county’s board of supervisors... a Republican who said he plans to caucus for one of the former governors in the field, said that he believes GOP candidates who talk about having the federal government punish sanctuary cities are contradicting traditional conservative values of limited government and local control.

“This isn’t Texas or Arizona, where there are issues at the border and its more of a burden on the local schools and hospitals,” Houser said. “If the federal government wants something done, they should get their act together and do it. They shouldn’t try and take away funding while we get stuck with all the work and responsibility.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.4400d37a9950

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

True. Any party that can't see the light in front of their own faces is doomed. Senate, House, POTUS, and Supreme Court. That was the cost of their illegitimate policies. What is their strategy now?

To double down.

you mean like the king of double down who is now sitting in the Oval Orifice?

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Apparently not in California...

Cant help where people are ignorant. Including in this thread. But anyway you are talking opinion not fact based realities. People everywhere are more inclined to opinion obviously. Doesnt make it right.

[jm1982]

I just saw this and was going to post it too lol .

This shows how sadly out of touch Brown and Mayor Garcetti of la is .

They've been talking vaguely about protecting immigrants and lumping them in with other groups that Trump is not targeting such as gays .

They do this on purpose so people think of it as a package deal .

When voters wake up to realize they are fighting for illegals I don't think they are going to be too happy .

The only reason I can tell for these politicians fighting for illegals is they hope they can vote one day and will keep them in power .

That's all they care about , they care nothing about the actually citizens . Disgusting

[StanleysOwl]

Originally Posted by jm1982

I just saw this and was going to post it too lol .

This shows how sadly out of touch Brown and Mayor Garcetti of la is .

They've been talking vaguely about protecting immigrants and lumping them in with other groups that Trump is not targeting such as gays .

They do this on purpose so people think of it as a package deal .

When voters wake up to realize they are fighting for illegals I don't think they are going to be too happy .

The only reason I can tell for these politicians fighting for illegals is they hope they can vote one day and will keep them in power .

That's all they care about , they care nothing about the actually citizens . Disgusting

But theyre not "fighting for illegals". They are fighting for their own increased effectiveness of law and order, the validity of the constitution, and to avoid crippling lawsuits. If you bother to read the thread you will see the issue isnt bleeding hearts

[CaliRestoration]

Originally Posted by StanleysOwl

But theyre not "fighting for illegals". They are fighting for their own increased effectiveness of law and order, the validity of the constitution, and to avoid crippling lawsuits. If you bother to read the thread you will see the issue isnt bleeding hearts

Man, did you pull that from the "Democrat handbook to create ineffective red herrings" ?

They are fighting to keep their voting bloc protected, nothing more. There is literally no other reason to offer entitlements to illegals who are a net negative to the tax system unless you are getting something back, in California's case, lots of votes from illegals and their families.