As entertained as we all were by this comment, it didn't answer my question, although come to think of it I didn't actually ask a question so much as ask for clarification on how you came up with your take on these events.
Isn't than an obvious presumption? They don't need Democratic votes, do they? They don't act as if the do. It's not like the GOP has been against shutting down the gubmit in the past.
It's the obvious presumption from a partisan who is clueless enough not to pay attention to the inherent illogic of what he's just said. You've just claimed that the GOP has the ability to do whatever it wants to do from a legislative standpoint, but they're going to shut down the government to stop (or promote?) legislation that they apparently could pass (or stop) any time they want without having to shut anything down. So I guess what? Just because they like shutting down government?
Works for me ... with the notable exception that the only govt paid folks who really lose are the part time Guard and Reserve forces who are "troughing." IE ... looking for things to do (fly) to get paid. This happened to me in 1995 with the Clinton shutdown ... recall all the sandcrabs leaving those cushy fed govt clerk offices ... just a giggling. They knew they just got a 6 week deferred paid vacation. And the were right. Got all their back pay ... for being somewhere besides on the job. That notwithstanding ... I love me some Fed govt shutdown.
They're Johnny from Cobra kai at a party walking through the halls hoping to get bumped. They want nothing more than a shutdown so they can scream to the rubes that the Dem's caused it. It will be the "Dicky Durbin/Sloppy Steve/Crooked/Lyin' Ted/etc." routine served up as red meat that the base loves. Get your gravy spoon ready, rube.
Dems could have resolved this in 2008 when they had 60 senate votes. Dems are nothing but gutter-level lying political filth on this issue.
That will go over well. Start arresting mayors and Police Chiefs of major cities then complain when when everyone accuses Trump of autocratic leadership tendencies. That will keep the bayou and conservative hornfan votes in check but the more rational voters will see it for what it is, authoritarian like the US has never seen before. I'm confident the adults in the White House will persevere over the children (Stephen Miller?) proposing ideas like this.
I keep hearing this ... but when local law enforcement is the "first on scene" of a federal offense (bank robbery to name one) ... should local cops/SOs just let the FBI attend the patrol duty? "Oh, disregard, dispatch, robbery in progress at First National Bank, that'd be for Special Agent Johnson (4 hours away)" There's no justification for failure to hold an illegal immigrant when found in commission of other offense. His BEING here is an offense and checking for illegals cannot effectively be limited to CBP roadside checkpoints.
They shouldn't, but they can. I think not wanting to get sued might be a justification. No, it's not. But that's up to the feds to decide. They have the authority to enforce the immigration laws. They just need to decide to do it.
The simplest way to force anti-American sanctuary enclaves to assist with enforcing immigration law is to cut off subsidy funding until they do comply. It's very effective.
shouldn't even have that subsidy in the first place. We all do our part where we are. Texas does more than Kansas on illegal immigration. Kansas is exposed to more cases of insanity due to being bland. It's a cooperative effort, or should be. @Mr. Deez ... it's not an offense to be on US soil without a legal status? I don't understand ... then why do we have check points ... why do we process through customs? Why do we further segregate the customs processing into "Citizens" and "Non-Citizens?"
I think the issue is that community policing works when the community helps. When a major portion of the community is not going to cooperate with law enforcement due to fear of immigration investigation into them or family/friends, there is a weakness in the chain.
An "offense" usually means a crime. It's a civil violation, not a crime. That makes a difference when we're talking about asking local law enforcement to hold a person. They can't do that unless the person is reasonably suspected of a crime. Because the federal government has the power to regulate ports of entry and chooses to do so.
I agree about the subsidy to an extent. However, when someone becomes dependent on you for money you have "monetized" their actions to some extent. You can require certain things from them because you have created an incentive/disincentive scenario. Ideally, this works with foreign regimes as long as someone enforces the disincentive when necessary.
then change the law. A LEO, by definition is one who enforces the law with the legal authority of the law. I am reminded, again, of the Tarrant County Sheriff last year/two years ago now ... insisting the "sanctuary city" status helps them solve crime. OK ... so if the illegal immigrant community is such a gold mine of intel ... is there not SOME degree of guilt by association applicable? Should that not, itself, be indicative there is crime within the illegal immigrant community and it should be adjudicated rather than exempted? Farbeit for me to quibble about word definition with you, sir ... but the Code calls it an offense ... specifically. (Assuming Cornell is a credible reference, of course) An offense to the law, which warrants arrest, not simply detainment and a fine as if you failed to install your in-possession/valid vehicle registration sticker. That it is a civil violation doesn't even inhibit incarceration. So it seems to me the only practical different WRT "entry" is the available duration/severity of the ... offense. civil/criminal.
naw, I understand your perspective, and given this particular circumstance I'd not object, but the law should be sufficient to motivate compliance for a lawful enforcement authority.
LOL OK ... so how does one avoid illegal entry and yet be legally in country? (expired work/student/visa notwithstanding) Mr. Scott Transporter? but that'd STILL be an offense to CFR 8. So ... while I'm sure you're legally correct, I find there's no practical difference.
I am not getting this - if this was true, then overstaying your visa would be just fine and nothing the feds can do about it.
