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.
If they have actually committed a crime, they will not be "protected". Do you know what "sanctuary city" policy is? It does not protect criminals.
See my post just above this one for more info on what the policy actually says.
Yes I get that they will still serve jail time I get that .
But after they are being sent right back to us soil and typically end up committing more crimes .
Criminals usually don't do just one crime in their life .
That's the problem .
Looks like Utah, Idaho and Montana have no sanctuary jurisdictions and I can say without a shadow of doubt that they are far safer then sanctuary states like New Mexico.
Colorado Springs is not a sanctuary city and Denver is a sanctuary city. Colorado Springs had 376 robberies in 2015 compared to Denver which had 1,230 robberies. Denver is about 50% larger in population.
Denver also tends to cook the books to make the crime rates seem lower.
Phoenix and Maricopa County has much, much lower violent crime rate then Las Vegas and Clark County, Nevada. Phoenix is not a sanctuary city and Maricopa County had one of the most strong sheriff's in America on enforcing the immigration laws for 22 years as opposed to Las Vegas and Clark County which is a sanctuary jurisdiction.
Oh for crying out loud...
Comparing Utah, Idaho and Montana to just about any areas with larger populations and urban centers is like arguing you are far less likely to be hit by a car out on a country road in Nebraska than on a freeway in Los Angeles! You'd be right of course, but for the love of apples and oranges, this isn't rocket science!
Yes I get that they will still serve jail time I get that .
But after they are being sent right back to us soil and typically end up committing more crimes .
Criminals usually don't do just one crime in their life .
That's the problem .
And federal immigration agents are welcome to do the work to deport them. "Sanctuary cities" won't stop that from happening.
If Trump wants to get serious about deportation, he can easily do that right now.
They do not. They simply will not enforce federal law that is not in their jurisdiction. If there is someone who has committed a crime, they will not just let them go. If a federal agent comes in for them, local law enforcement will not stop them.
Have you actually read what "sanctuary city" policy is? All it says is that local resources and personnel will not be used to carry out federal immigration law that is not in their jurisdiction. It really is not all that controversial.
I realize this is a contentious topic for many people, and the word "sanctuary" implies "protection" - but that's not really what the policy is. It's always good to be informed - check out SF's "sanctuary city" policy here: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code...chapter12h.pdf
And federal immigration agents are welcome to do the work to deport them. "Sanctuary cities" won't stop that from happening.
If Trump wants to get serious about deportation, he can easily do that right now.
I support deportation of these criminals.
You'd think this was a new idea or Trump's idea if you didn't know better...
"President Obama has moved millions of people out. Nobody knows about it. Nobody talks about it. But under Obama, millions of people have been moved out of this country. They've been deported," Trump said.
Deportations and what to do with millions of people in the country illegally are highly controversial topics. Trump himself has not stuck to one approach about it.
There’s no doubt many people have been deported under Obama’s presidency --- but we were curious about Trump’s claim of "millions" and on lack of information about it, "nobody knows about it, nobody talks about it."
Here’s what’s known about deportation numbers.
They do not. They simply will not enforce federal law that is not in their jurisdiction. If there is someone who has committed a crime, they will not just let them go. If a federal agent comes in for them, local law enforcement will not stop them.
Have you actually read what "sanctuary city" policy is? All it says is that local resources and personnel will not be used to carry out federal immigration law that is not in their jurisdiction. It really is not all that controversial.
I realize this is a contentious topic for many people, and the word "sanctuary" implies "protection" - but that's not really what the policy is. It's always good to be informed - check out SF's "sanctuary city" policy here: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code...chapter12h.pdf
They should check the residency status of ANY person being arrested. Any time I've ever had dealings with the police I was asked for ID. It isn't asking a lot of the police. If the arrested individual failed to produce valid ID inform ICE about them. Simple. No legitimate reason not to do so unless your goal is to obstruct justice.
I hear this argument a lot but it doesn't seem to be based by any facts or reality .
How do we know illegals are causing LESS crime than legal citizens if these sanctuary cities aren't even keeping track of who is illegal or legal when they catch a criminal ?
Also is this just a case of liberals lumping together illegal immigrants with legal ones ?
Because they have crime statistics? New York is the safest major city in the country. It's also the largest and has the most immigrants.
Shouldn't be a priority at all. ONLY those who are arrested should be checked. Reporting a crime should not be a reason for checking residency status.
I agree.
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.