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.
Which totally explains Washington state and the governor who went into a rage because the DOL was giving information to ICE. WA lets illegals get drivers licenses, one reason a WA drivers license isn't good enough for getting on a plane anymore.
Which totally explains Washington state and the governor who went into a rage because the DOL was giving information to ICE. WA lets illegals get drivers licenses, one reason a WA drivers license isn't good enough for getting on a plane anymore.
I dont see how the can do that, NO car insurance company would ever write a policy on someone here illegally, they make you show proof of auto insurance whenever you tag or license a car, so if they are letting illegals get drivers licenses, they are probably letting them break a bunch of other laws, like driving without car insurance.
Depends on what type of sanctuary you had in mind. If you mean sanctuary from the Gaystapo and the Gender-bender "civil rights" movement and Obamacare and the Enemies of Progress Association (EPA) and the other tyrannies of the Left and their corporatist allies, then I most certainly do.
If you mean more illegals and Middle Easterners who are being used by the globalists to "fundamentally transform" America, then hell no!
WA lets illegals get drivers licenses, one reason a WA drivers license isn't good enough for getting on a plane anymore.
Not until 2020 with the latest postponement.
I effectively support sanctuary cities, guess it depends on how you define it. Cities should not have to commit city employees/funds/resources to federal immigration law enforcement. Which was effectively the root of the whole issue. Also people being able to report a crime without fear of being turned over themselves have shown the policy increases safety.
But, cities should absolutely not take active steps to shelter illegal immigrants. Which is basically my line, are they actively deciding to hide known illegals from ICE rather than just not investigating citizenship status to begin without being given cause?
I effectively support sanctuary cities, guess it depends on how you define it. Cities should not have to commit city employees/funds/resources to federal immigration law enforcement. Which was effectively the root of the whole issue. Also people being able to report a crime without fear of being turned over themselves have shown the policy increases safety.
But, cities should absolutely not take active steps to shelter illegal immigrants. Which is basically my line, are they actively deciding to hide known illegals from ICE rather than just not investigating citizenship status to begin without being given cause?
It is a crime to be here illegally. By saying its not OK to verify citizenship status for the sole reason of doing just that, throws our laws down the dumper.
No one bats an eye when police set up radar to look for speeders. Its the same thing. Lots of people driving by. They are only looking for those that break the law.
It is a crime to be here illegally. By saying its not OK to verify citizenship status for the sole reason of doing just that, throws our laws down the dumper.
No one bats an eye when police set up radar to look for speeders. Its the same thing. Lots of people driving by. They are only looking for those that break the law.
Right but it's a jurisdiction issue. The FBI isn't going to pull you over for going 35 in a 25 zone in the city.
I believe that if states want to be sanctuary states, then fine. I don’t care.
I also support the right of the federal government to impose their will on sanctuary states.
You SHOULD care if states are violating federal laws. That's not ok.
What they are doing is "aiding and abetting".
IF a school bus driver transports an illegal alien, and they know that person is illegal, they are committing a felony. Do you think the state should be putting its workers in the position of committing a federal offense within the scope of their job duties? Or how about a parent driving undocumented kids on a field trip? Should the state be putting otherwise innocent citizens in that position? It is unconscionable.
And looking the other way, and concealing or failing to identify whether students are illegally present in the country is not the answer. States shouldn't be doing that.
It is like a pawnbroker selling "hot" goods. That's why they have been given the affirmative duty to identify a consignor. They cannot just fail to do that and then claim they didn't know. Why? Because it is not socially responsible to simply look the other way" if there is evidence of criminal activity and you're going to be involved in enabling that, or making it lucrative for a criminal. That's called being an accessory after the fact. Its often the basis for charges of trafficking in stolen goods.
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.
