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'm a liberal, and don't support sanctuary policies. However, they must do it diligently and get the criminals first, and have some leniency on families.
sanctuary city, state whatever is nuts. Wouldn't it be nice to enter a country illegally, commit a crime and know you are pretty safe. At least you wouldn't be sent to jail for entering the country or sent back to your home country?
Sanctuary policy doesn’t give any criminal activity a pass ... why you think it is a safe zone is puzzling. Crime is investigated and arrests are made regardless of immigration status of offenders. The theory behind sanctuary is only that local law enforcement will not ask immigration status or call federal authorities ... and this puts immigrants - legal as well as illegal - at ease to report criminal activity and interact with local LEO’s.
Immigration issues are strictly federal responsibility. States do not have power over immigration law. Therfore it’s not local business to enforce.
Sanctuary policy doesn’t give any criminal activity a pass ... why you think it is a safe zone is puzzling. Crime is investigated and arrests are made regardless of immigration status of offenders. The theory behind sanctuary is only that local law enforcement will not ask immigration status or call federal authorities ... and this puts immigrants - legal as well as illegal - at ease to report criminal activity and interact with local LEO’s.
Immigration issues are strictly federal responsibility. States do not have power over immigration law. Therfore it’s not local business to enforce.
You support some illegal activity because it will gain the trust of illegal people and they will report crimes. You don't want local LE to tip ICE that someone they are investigating or have arrested may be an illegal alien. On the premise that it builds trust with illegal aliens (that they are arresting and investigating). There's a lot of issues that Fed specific, but they work on task forces all the time. Might as well go all out and prevent local LE from working with DEA, ATF, Secret Service, FBI, etc.
Asinine.
By the way, what better way to capture illegal aliens than by letting police tip off ICE to ones they are investigating and arresting so they can investigate if they are illegal and deportable.
Oh. Sorry for the confusion. You're right, though. It was our job to work (and live) by a set of of standards but I could tell you some pretty hair-curling stories of the things that went on in the department. Seriously. There were a few who should have been run out of town on a rail. lol And that's all I'll say about it
Maybe, maybe not. I don't want to see Officer Singh's funeral turned into a political statement. Let the department and other law enforcement, family and friends say goodbye to this man. Ironically, he was an immigrant to this country but achieved citizenship the right way. If ever there was story of polar opposites, this would be it.
in the past the Gov went to a police officers funeral that was killed on duty. That seems to have gone to the wayside with Brown. No doubt Newsome will continue to no show...
in the past the Gov went to a police officers funeral that was killed on duty. That seems to have gone to the wayside with Brown. No doubt Newsome will continue to no show...
I wasn't aware of that. I guess I don't follow it very closely. As for Newsom ... considering his public statement after the shooting that he plans on continuing the actions California has set forth regarding sanctuary, it would be very embarrassing (I would think) for him to attend the service. Probably best he stays away which I'm fairly certain is what he will decide to do.
Yes, because it's not the duty of city/state police and budgets to enforce immigration law. That's up to the feds. The default setup is actually a "sanctuary" one.
Though going as far as actively suppressing info from the feds and warning them is another matter.
You said I didn’t have ideas, opinions, plans ... I’ve now given you examples of my positions otherwise ... which I have expressed many times on these forums. Just because you haven’t read them before doesn’t mean I don’t have them ... get it?
Those who sneak in and don’t qualify get sent back. Of course. Obviously.
[sigh] I beg your pardon for not having read your other 11,180 posts, most of which have little or nothing to do with the specific topic at hand.
Anyone would think you were avoiding this question, which I now repeat for the third time: What about the children of US citizens who can't or won't complete the "service" qualification and therefore cannot be citizens? Where do they get "sent back to"?
Why is it okay for California and others to violate/ignore federal law?
Will Democrats be fine when red states flaunt their violations of liberal law?
Say in 2021 the Democrats make national gun laws much stricter and the red states order their police and cities to (1) not enforce national gun laws and (2) not cooperate with national officials seeking to enforce said gun laws...you don't think democrats would lose their mind?
I think it stinks. This used to be a county of laws, now it's a country of feelings....
Whatever one thinks about immigration, this is the key point of this issue. Rule of law is quietly being eroded.
Interesting that we in WA just passed an assault weapon package, and a Sheriff in rural Eastern WA has already announced that he is declaring his county a sanctuary county for assault weapons. Seattle liberals more or less put this on ignore, because they know how idiotic they will sound if they speak up.
Why is it okay for California and others to violate/ignore federal law?
Will Democrats be fine when red states flaunt their violations of liberal law?
Say in 2021 the Democrats make national gun laws much stricter and the red states order their police and cities to (1) not enforce national gun laws and (2) not cooperate with national officials seeking to enforce said gun laws...you don't think democrats would lose their mind?
We have done exactly this in WA regarding pot law. We legalized pot, even though it remains illegal under federal law. Our governor signed an agreement with Eric Holder to ignore federal law. This is utterly unconstitutional under Article I Section 1 of the Constitution.
Quote:
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States
Last I checked, neither a governor nor attorney general are part of the US Congress.
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.
