Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.
In this case, I think that the conditions referenced are directly related to the programs they affect. No issue or conflict to be found on this particular matter.
Because the feds shouldn't pay for a bridge because an illegal alien might be slightly more likely to cross it? I'm trying to be generous here; your argument seems to be "Yes it is!" and nothing more.
2) by simply not honoring the detainers in question, it is an effective obstacle to deportation.
What does this mean?
3) You totally misstate my position, with the exception of the ambulance driver. Illegals should be addressed at this point in time on a priority basis, only. The worst of the worst first. Violent criminals, then lower level criminals. We can address everyone else once we have a fully operational border policy. But the everyone else still faces incidental involvement through ordinary activities and the consequences, nothing new there.
You stated that the alleged crime at Rockville High School was "totally preventable"; you didn't go into detail on that, so since we were discussing immigration policy the natural assumption was that the students involved should have been deported before the crime took place.
To deport people for their immigration status you have to discover it. Illegal immigrants don't walk around in bright orange vests that say "ILLEGAL ALIEN" on them, you have to investigate that status.
And under our system of laws the presumption has to be that everyone is here legally. You don't have to prove you're innocent, the government has to prove you're guilty. So how do we do that?
You're pulled over for a broken taillight—you're a lower level criminal. Can you prove you're a citizen on the spot? Should anyone have to?
4) No one is asking for anyone to spend time investigating peoples status in this concern. Its just honor the detainer for someone already in custody. Your remarks are disingenuous or irrelevant as a justification for doing nothing in this particular example.
You keep using those words. What do they mean?
Explain how someone can refrain from doing nothing without spending time. I'll wait.
5) Same as always and often stated. Numero uno, secure the border and enforce it with the laws on the books. Once that has been done we can look at who is already here. Similar as back in the 80's. But not before the border is fully functional and operational as designed. No rainchecks, we've already done this back in the 80's and got burned. Fool me once ...
In addition, we need to address visa overstays and promptly return violators to their home country. Non compliance with the visa terms will not be tolerated and that example will help with voluntary compliance. Establish a work program for seasonal workers, etc to address the needs of agriculture for example. Fine, come on in legally for a defined time for a defined purpose and be subject to all the laws that apply to citizens. No objections on my part to that.
Just simply enforce the plenty of laws we already have on the books. I see no need for new ones. We have laws for verifying legal employment and penalties for companies who violate them.
I became directly aware of these verification laws when they were implemented in the late 80's and early 90's because I was doing hiring and firing of employees. If I did not obtain the proper documents to verify citizenship or legal status, I , me, myself and I was subject to fines and jail. I have paying close attention to this subject ever since.
It is the non enforcement of these laws that is mostly responsible for the current state of affairs.
And Congress must look at the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship by birth from foreign national non citizen parents. It has never formally been determined and is within Congress' right (and now an obligation) to do so.
So you're not going to answer. OK.
Re: 1) You brought up the matter of DOJ withholding funds for Sanctuary Cities. Cities that choose to ignore federal immigration laws. The specific here is withholding funds for law enforcement. I think that these are directly related. There are no bridges involved.
2) Requests from ICE to continue holding someone in custody until ICE can come in and pick them up and transfer custody. To refuse to honor a detainer is to effectively interfere with the legal process and block deportation should that be the eventual outcome.
3) Again you limit your thinking. If the borders were actually defended and trespassers caught at the border and returned immediately, it would then be preventable. Catch and release is not the answer. It is how these suspects were allowed to keep on going until arriving in Rockville. Catch and return would have prevented this particular crime. We already know that the oldest suspect was in fact caught and released. I believe that true of the younger but not sure.
4) This is obvious. see 2 above.
5) There was much more than just enforce the laws mentioned. What is your solution ? Open borders and no rules I bet.
Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.
In this case, I think that the conditions referenced are directly related to the programs they affect. No issue or conflict to be found on this particular matter.
Because the feds shouldn't pay for a bridge because an illegal alien might be slightly more likely to cross it? I'm trying to be generous here; your argument seems to be "Yes it is!" and nothing more.
2) by simply not honoring the detainers in question, it is an effective obstacle to deportation.
What does this mean?
3) You totally misstate my position, with the exception of the ambulance driver. Illegals should be addressed at this point in time on a priority basis, only. The worst of the worst first. Violent criminals, then lower level criminals. We can address everyone else once we have a fully operational border policy. But the everyone else still faces incidental involvement through ordinary activities and the consequences, nothing new there.
You stated that the alleged crime at Rockville High School was "totally preventable"; you didn't go into detail on that, so since we were discussing immigration policy the natural assumption was that the students involved should have been deported before the crime took place.
To deport people for their immigration status you have to discover it. Illegal immigrants don't walk around in bright orange vests that say "ILLEGAL ALIEN" on them, you have to investigate that status.
And under our system of laws the presumption has to be that everyone is here legally. You don't have to prove you're innocent, the government has to prove you're guilty. So how do we do that?
You're pulled over for a broken taillight—you're a lower level criminal. Can you prove you're a citizen on the spot? Should anyone have to?
4) No one is asking for anyone to spend time investigating peoples status in this concern. Its just honor the detainer for someone already in custody. Your remarks are disingenuous or irrelevant as a justification for doing nothing in this particular example.
You keep using those words. What do they mean?
Explain how someone can refrain from doing nothing without spending time. I'll wait.
5) Same as always and often stated. Numero uno, secure the border and enforce it with the laws on the books. Once that has been done we can look at who is already here. Similar as back in the 80's. But not before the border is fully functional and operational as designed. No rainchecks, we've already done this back in the 80's and got burned. Fool me once ...
In addition, we need to address visa overstays and promptly return violators to their home country. Non compliance with the visa terms will not be tolerated and that example will help with voluntary compliance. Establish a work program for seasonal workers, etc to address the needs of agriculture for example. Fine, come on in legally for a defined time for a defined purpose and be subject to all the laws that apply to citizens. No objections on my part to that.
Just simply enforce the plenty of laws we already have on the books. I see no need for new ones. We have laws for verifying legal employment and penalties for companies who violate them.
I became directly aware of these verification laws when they were implemented in the late 80's and early 90's because I was doing hiring and firing of employees. If I did not obtain the proper documents to verify citizenship or legal status, I , me, myself and I was subject to fines and jail. I have paying close attention to this subject ever since.
It is the non enforcement of these laws that is mostly responsible for the current state of affairs.
And Congress must look at the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship by birth from foreign national non citizen parents. It has never formally been determined and is within Congress' right (and now an obligation) to do so.
So sanctuary cities are designed to prevent illegal alien victims of crimes being deported just for reporting a crime. Ok, so how do we make the leap from that to protecting the actual criminal from deportation ?
I can understand the first part of all of that, but the second part is beyond comprehension and makes me against the whole thing.
2) No one is protecting any criminals from deportation. Deportation is a federal function, no city or state can deport anyone. Sanctuary cities just refuse to investigate immigration status—at least unconnected from any other crime. In the case that has your knickers a-twist they did investigate the immigration status of the accused rapists—that's how we all found out about it.
3) You want all illegal aliens deported—little kids, old ladies, the guy who picks your lettuce, the lady who drives the ambulance that picks you up after a car accident. If you want to narc on them just call the feds instead of the local cops. They'll happily kick the door down and haul them (and anyone in the vicinity without papers) off to a detention center. The local cops (depending on local ordinances) might not. The kids' school might not narc on them, the hospital might not, the fire department might not. This has you outraged.
You seem to think that the alleged perps would never have done what they're alleged to have done if only someone had only done...what? Checked citizenship status of.every person in the country? Every student in every high school? Or what? Do the cops go door to door, stop and frisk everyone they see, set up checkpoints—so they can demand "show me your papers!"
4) Seems like they might be busy with other things—you know, murders and stuff—and this would take up a fairly large portion of their waking hours. Maybe we should cut this task down to a more manageable size; should they just do that for people who look like they might be Hispanic? What about other nationalities, do they get a pass, or do we just get to them later?
5)) What is it you want done?
Not vague generalities, like "Enforce the law!" but an actual concrete proposal that could actually happen. Explain that.
1) from the decision ...
Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.
In this case, I think that the conditions referenced are directly related to the programs they affect. No issue or conflict to be found on this particular matter.
2) by simply not honoring the detainers in question, it is an effective obstacle to deportation.
3) You totally misstate my position, with the exception of the ambulance driver. Illegals should be addressed at this point in time on a priority basis, only. The worst of the worst first. Violent criminals, then lower level criminals. We can address everyone else once we have a fully operational border policy. But the everyone else still faces incidental involvement through ordinary activities and the consequences, nothing new there.
4) No one is asking for anyone to spend time investigating peoples status in this concern. Its just honor the detainer for someone already in custody. Your remarks are disingenuous or irrelevant as a justification for doing nothing in this particular example.
5) Same as always and often stated. Numero uno, secure the border and enforce it with the laws on the books. Once that has been done we can look at who is already here. Similar as back in the 80's. But not before the border is fully functional and operational as designed. No rainchecks, we've already done this back in the 80's and got burned. Fool me once ...
In addition, we need to address visa overstays and promptly return violators to their home country. Non compliance with the visa terms will not be tolerated and that example will help with voluntary compliance. Establish a work program for seasonal workers, etc to address the needs of agriculture for example. Fine, come on in legally for a defined time for a defined purpose and be subject to all the laws that apply to citizens. No objections on my part to that.
Just simply enforce the plenty of laws we already have on the books. I see no need for new ones. We have laws for verifying legal employment and penalties for companies who violate them.
I became directly aware of these verification laws when they were implemented in the late 80's and early 90's because I was doing hiring and firing of employees. If I did not obtain the proper documents to verify citizenship or legal status, I , me, myself and I was subject to fines and jail. I have paying close attention to this subject ever since.
It is the non enforcement of these laws that is mostly responsible for the current state of affairs.
And Congress must look at the 14th Amendment as it applies to citizenship by birth from foreign national non citizen parents. It has never formally been determined and is within Congress' right (and now an obligation) to do so.
So sanctuary cities are designed to prevent illegal alien victims of crimes being deported just for reporting a crime. Ok, so how do we make the leap from that to protecting the actual criminal from deportation ?
I can understand the first part of all of that, but the second part is beyond comprehension and makes me against the whole thing.
No one is protecting any criminals from deportation. Deportation is a federal function, no city or state can deport anyone. Sanctuary cities just refuse to investigate immigration status—at least unconnected from any other crime. In the case that has your knickers a-twist they did investigate the immigration status of the accused rapists—that's how we all found out about it.
You want all illegal aliens deported—little kids, old ladies, the guy who picks your lettuce, the lady who drives the ambulance that picks you up after a car accident. If you want to narc on them just call the feds instead of the local cops. They'll happily kick the door down and haul them (and anyone in the vicinity without papers) off to a detention center. The local cops (depending on local ordinances) might not. The kids' school might not narc on them, the hospital might not, the fire department might not. This has you outraged.
You seem to think that the alleged perps would never have done what they're alleged to have done if only someone had only done...what? Checked citizenship status of.every person in the country? Every student in every high school? Or what? Do the cops go door to door, stop and frisk everyone they see, set up checkpoints—so they can demand "show me your papers!"
Seems like they might be busy with other things—you know, murders and stuff—and this would take up a fairly large portion of their waking hours. Maybe we should cut this task down to a more manageable size; should they just do that for people who look like they might be Hispanic? What about other nationalities, do they get a pass, or do we just get to them later? What is it you want done?
Not vague generalities, like "Enforce the law!" but an actual concrete proposal that could actually happen. Explain that.
First off there is nothing unconstitutional about withholding grants from those who do meet the conditions needed to be eligible for these grants.
To whom it may concern ...
So sanctuary cities are designed to prevent illegal alien victims of crimes being deported just for reporting a crime. Ok, so how do we make the leap from that to protecting the actual criminal from deportation ?
I can understand the first part of all of that, but the second part is beyond comprehension and makes me against the whole thing.
Yesterday Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatened to withhold, terminate, and "claw-back" federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities and states, which are those jurisdictions that either won't help the federal government round up and deport undocumented immigrants or otherwise refuse to participate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. "I urge our nation's states and cities to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce our immigration laws, and to re-think these policies," Sessions said. "Such policies make their cities and states less safe, and put them at risk of losing valuable federal dollars."
Sessions may not like the idea of sanctuary cities, but sanctuary cites are protected by both the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent. As Justice Antonin Scalia observed in his 2007 majority opinion in Printz v. United States, "the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." In other words, thanks to the 10th Amendment and to the constitutional principles of federalism, the federal government may not commandeer the states for federal purposes. What that means here is that state and local officials have every right to refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.
Mmmyeah. Now you solved it. Problems are over. Discussion is closed.
I wasn't trying to solve anything; simply pointing out that we - as a species - need to think and act outside our selfish, tribal boxes if we want to continue existing.
In a sense I really like not to care about things like locking my car. But if I give others the chance of stealing stuff from me it will happen. It already happend because I wasn't careful enough. Would I steal stuff if I could do it? No. But others do. The same is about borders. My country would not abuse the freedom. But other countries will. Russia will invade east Europe if nobody is caring about the borders. Turkey will invade Greece. Muslims will invade Israel. India will invade Pakistan and also Pakistan will invade India. China will invade a lot of small countries around it. And so on, and so on. Generally spoken the country with the worst human rights and economy will try to conquer the country with a better situation. You can choose to stop caring about borders, but it will not help you. It will help people that care about things we consider as not very good.
I'd like to think it wouldn't matter where I live. The principle is the same: we learn to live together or we die.
In a sense I really like not to care about things like locking my car. But if I give others the chance of stealing stuff from me it will happen. It already happend because I wasn't careful enough. Would I steal stuff if I could do it? No. But others do. The same is about borders. My country would not abuse the freedom. But other countries will. Russia will invade east Europe if nobody is caring about the borders. Turkey will invade Greece. Muslims will invade Israel. India will invade Pakistan and also Pakistan will invade India. China will invade a lot of small countries around it. And so on, and so on. Generally spoken the country with the worst human rights and economy will try to conquer the country with a better situation. You can choose to stop caring about borders, but it will not help you. It will help people that care about things we consider as not very good.
We are gonna die.....lol Let's face it with cuts to the EPA and a basic snubbing to our allies when it comes to global warming, climate change or whatever they are calling it now, at such a critical point in our geological history, we are doomed.
You are probably correct, but I still have to live the change I'd like to see the best I can. *shrug*
I'd like to think it wouldn't matter where I live. The principle is the same: we learn to live together or we die.
We are gonna die.....lol Let's face it with cuts to the EPA and a basic snubbing to our allies when it comes to global warming, climate change or whatever they are calling it now, at such a critical point in our geological history, we are doomed.
As long as humanity insists on the selfish, self-destructive idea that we need borders and nation-states etc., this will be a problem. We need to grow tf up and behave as we actually are - one species living on one planet.
That's easy to say if you live in a place between Canada and Mexico. Move to Israël or even Greece and you get other ideas.
As long as humanity insists on the selfish, self-destructive idea that we need borders and nation-states etc., this will be a problem. We need to grow tf up and behave as we actually are - one species living on one planet.
As long as humanity insists on the selfish, self-destructive idea that we need borders and nation-states etc., this will be a problem. We need to grow tf up and behave as we actually are - one species living on one planet.
All we have to do is to give California back (at least from say San Francisco south, Emerald Triangle needs to remain with us) to its rightful owners, Mexico. Boom! Everyone is a legal citizen and Californian residents no longer have to put up with the United States. See? I am solutions oriented.
Um no.....That is just not going to work for me :)