Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I said it before in another thread. Trump needs to turn this into a reality show. A charming host accompanied by Federal police will ask the mayor or anyone else in charge of a sanctuary city if they will continue to defy federal law by sheltering known people who have broken immigration laws.
If they say yes then they are arrested on the spot and their case is followed weekly like a long version of "Law and Order"
If they say no then there are follow ups to ensure they are complying.
This could be a hit show.
Yep. You're right. They're not just defying the law, they're breaking it. It's a federal crime to aid or abet the harboring of illegals. I agree, the Fed Gov should just start prosecuting the sanctuary city/state elected officials who are committing that crime.
instead of deporting illegals, why not create a system where the sanctuary cities have to bear all the costs of supporting them? With the Republicans in charge of most state and Federal branches of government, how hard could it be?
It just seems ridiculous to march deportation troops into cities in order to do something that can be instead done through changes in tax laws/social spending
Us employers would move there in droves to take advantage of the low cost labor. They don't have to pay ss, payroll tax, disability, unemployment insurance, medical, etc. the illegal pays none of these taxes either, just cash straight to the pocket. they directly undercut American workers who are not able to take under the table pay.
So workers in other states should not have to compete directly with states who choose to break the laws. It defies the purpose of the interstate clause which is supposed to stop tarriffs between states. If it gets to the point where CA is using illegal labor to compete with other states, time to ammend the commerce clause.
instead of deporting illegals, why not create a system where the sanctuary cities have to bear all the costs of supporting them? With the Republicans in charge of most state and Federal branches of government, how hard could it be?
It just seems ridiculous to march deportation troops into cities in order to do something that can be instead done through changes in tax laws/social spending
Is there something about ILLEGAL you don't understand? Deport the illegals and prosecute the sanctuary city/state politicians/officials who allow "sanctuary" for aiding and abetting.
instead of deporting illegals, why not create a system where the sanctuary cities have to bear all the costs of supporting them? With the Republicans in charge of most state and Federal branches of government, how hard could it be?
It just seems ridiculous to march deportation troops into cities in order to do something that can be instead done through changes in tax laws/social spending
Why have immigration laws if you aren't going to enforce them? There will be no deportation troops just enforce the laws on the books and remove all of the incentives for illegals to remain here and continue to come here and secure the border.
Us employers would move there in droves to take advantage of the low cost labor. They don't have to pay ss, payroll tax, disability, unemployment insurance, medical, etc. the illegal pays none of these taxes either, just cash straight to the pocket. they directly undercut American workers who are not able to take under the table pay.
So workers in other states should not have to compete directly with states who choose to break the laws. It defies the purpose of the interstate clause which is supposed to stop tarriffs between states. If it gets to the point where CA is using illegal labor to compete with other states, time to ammend the commerce clause.
In sanctuary cities like San Francisco, employers are forced to pay high taxes into government services like the city's health care program, and pay for taxes for schools and public safety services too. So any employer who flocks to San Francisco to exploit illegal labor would still be forced to pay taxes into the system.
What I'm saying is that sanctuary cities should be allowed to pursue the policies they want to pursue, and be forced to accept the full consequences of those policies too (higher taxes due to a higher population of low-income people)
As for competition with Americans outside of those cities, that's not my problem. Competition is not illegal nor immoral. Most illegals in sanctuary cities compete for wages with the Democrats within these cities' borders anyway.
Again, choice and consequences. Let's give the Democrat sanctuary cities the freedom to choose their economic fate. In return, Republicans nationwide will be freed from any IRS obligations to support these choices.
Is there something about ILLEGAL you don't understand? Deport the illegals and prosecute the sanctuary city/state politicians/officials who allow "sanctuary" for aiding and abetting.
Illegal immigrants should be punished, so should the Americans who hire them. And sanctuary cities should be punished too. But the punishment should fit the crime. We're talking about job competition and tax avoidance. All of this can be rectified with fines and penalties. When an American avoids taxes, they are punished accordingly. The same can be done to illegals. As for job competition, I'd argue that very minimal punishment should be meted out because of that. They competed for jobs. So what?
And long term, if the Democrats want to create a bizarre ultra-capitalist set of rules for immigrants (laissez faire immigration), then why not let them face the consequences of such a decision?
You appear to want the Democrats to bend to your protectionist laws forever. But why? And how is this consistent with right-wing values of independence from big government, support for capitalism and so on?
Why have immigration laws if you aren't going to enforce them? There will be no deportation troops just enforce the laws on the books and remove all of the incentives for illegals to remain here and continue to come here and secure the border.
I agree that Sanctuary cities should be defunded of Federal funds. That will put the Democrats in a position where they must put their money where their mouths are. But after that, why bother to deport? Democrats claim to want to protect illegals from Federal (Republican) deportation. Once Federal funds are out of the equation, cities will have to fend for themselves on the illegal issue. Sounds good to me. It will be a "moment of truth" as the OP states.
In sanctuary cities like San Francisco, employers are forced to pay high taxes into government services like the city's health care program, and pay for taxes for schools and public safety services too. So any employer who flocks to San Francisco to exploit illegal labor would still be forced to pay taxes into the system.
What I'm saying is that sanctuary cities should be allowed to pursue the policies they want to pursue, and be forced to accept the full consequences of those policies too (higher taxes due to a higher population of low-income people)
As for competition with Americans outside of those cities, that's not my problem. Competition is not illegal nor immoral. Most illegals in sanctuary cities compete for wages with the Democrats within these cities' borders anyway.
Again, choice and consequences. Let's give the Democrat sanctuary cities the freedom to choose their economic fate. In return, Republicans nationwide will be freed from any IRS obligations to support these choices.
Competition for jobs, resources and taxes by illegal aliens against the rightful citizens of this country is illegal and immoral.
Illegal immigrants should be punished, so should the Americans who hire them. And sanctuary cities should be punished too. But the punishment should fit the crime. We're talking about job competition and tax avoidance. All of this can be rectified with fines and penalties.
Change Federal law, then. In the meantime, sanctuary cities'/states' officials are committing the crime of aiding and abetting the harboring of illegals.
Incidentally, your illegal alien friend's wife is committing that same crime. He should be deported and she should be prosecuted.
With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. §*1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years.
Is your illegal alien friend employed? If so, that's private financial gain for his wife and the 10 year prison penalty applies to her case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
