Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by theiioftx, Nov 10, 2016.
He's definitely a lawyer's worst nightmare as a client.
I was embarrassed to have Obama as my President. Enjoy the next 5 years.
Canada is pretty close to Oregon and has nationalized healthcare, high taxes, and gun control. Just sayin’
And leave this country to you? I care about it too much for that.
The constant outcry from liberals is,”America is the richest most powerful country in the world” when arguing for free healthcare, open borders, gun control, less military, anti police and other socialist ideas.
Well guess what, that is why we are the richest most powerful country in the world. It’s why we are called on to always bail these failed governments out who are in crisis. It’s why people in South America and other failed economies risk their lives to come here. It’s because we have not fallen prey to the dumba** of liberals.
The reason you do not want to move to Canada is that you know it too. You just feel guilty you are fortunate enough to live in the greatest country on Earth.
The fact that you're embarrassed by Trump but not by democrat rule breakers who have set up sanctuary cities says a lot about you.
The stupid Emoluments Clause suit against Trump was dismissed by the 4th Cir.
"The District and Maryland’s interest in enforcing the Emoluments Clauses is so attenuated and abstract that their prosecution of this case readily provokes the question of whether this action against the President is an appropriate use of the courts"
Appeals court dismisses Emoluments Clause lawsuit in win for Trump
This is not a difficult question for most people to grasp
67% of voters approve of adding a citizenship question to the census, per a Harvard/Harris poll
Hola: Majority of Hispanic voters approve of citizenship question on U.S. census
Access Hollywood: fail
Muh Russiagate: fail
Porn star Stormy Daniels: fail
Creepy Porn Lawyer Avenetti: fail
E. Jean Carroll: fail
Emoulements suit: fail
What is next flailing sphinctermonkeys?
Rule breakers? I'll leave it to Mr. Deez to stem your ignorance.
Sorry, but these cities are not allowed to protect illegals against the feds. While the locals don't have to help the feds they can't deter them either.
Neither Congress nor the President. But yes we should.
Sanctuary cities are a dicey issue, because their legality and how wise they are from a policy standpoint depends on what we're talking about. Originally, a sanctuary city was simply a city that didn't honor federal ICE detainers and didn't turn people it had access to over to ICE. There's nothing illegal about that. States and cities are under no obligation to cooperate with them and under no obligation to help enforce federal immigration law.
What about situations in which city officials tip off illegal immigrants when and where ICE raids are going to occur? I think that is far more questionable, because they're actively interfering with federal law enforcement officers trying to enforce federal laws. I think most fair-minded people can agree that this is out of line and bad policy.
As for not turning people over to ICE, I think it depends on the situation. If someone notifies the police of a crime it testifies in court, he or she shouldn't have to fear the police calling ICE. They can call ICE, but it's a bad idea and sends a couple terrible message. Basically, an illegal immigrant will never report a crime again.
But if a city or state is about to release a felon or otherwise violent criminal from custody, should they notify ICE? Of course, even if they don't have to.
Bad policy vs "rule breakers". There are no "rules" being broken even by that local Berkeley Mayor, to my knowledge.
I'd agree on bad policy. My own stance is that local law enforcement should not work WITH ICE because of the need for support within immigrant communities for local law enforcement. If they are an extension of ICE they'll never get the cooperation needed for investigations which are especially important in dense urban environments.
I'm not as supportive of local politicians and law enforcement early warnings. Just stand aside as an impartial 3rd party.
She's walking on the line. She's helping people evade law enforcement. That wouldn't be tolerated in most contexts.
I'm pretty sympathetic to this argument, but there's a balance. You have to encourage cooperation with local communities, and I wouldn't just willy-nilly turn people over to ICE. However, if you've got a serious bad apple in custody you can't release that guy into the public if you know he should be deported. That's just not responsible, and it's asking for trouble.
Do you think local law enforcement is knowingly releasing "bad hombres" back into their own communities in which they are judged by crime rates? That's not rational. More than likely they are disregarding misdemeanors and holding violent felony accusations.
Msybeyou should look up Boston Judge Shelby Joseph and her role in lettibg a twice deported illegal with criminalrecird and numerous alias to escape out the back door of the courthouse knowing ICE was waiting in front.
Read up on a case in Newton Mass, a judge snuck a TWICE deported criminal illegal out the back as ICE waited in front of courthouse.
These are criminals beyond just breaking the law sneaking in.
It's not rational, but what makes you assume that politicians who run sanctuary cities always act rationally? Politicians act according to what motivates their constituents, not what's rational. If constituents value opposition to deportation over potential crime problems, then the politicians are going to err on the side of not cooperating with ICE.
Sometimes they do knowingly release bad hombres. The guy who shot Katie Steinle was a 7-time convicted felon when he got released. I'd say that qualifies him as a "bad hombre."
The problem with only holding violent felons is that you leave out some pretty bad and dangerous people. For example, you'll leave out drunk drivers, drug dealers, pimps, arsonists, and thieves. The 11th Circuit has held that statutory rape isn't a violent crime.
Call me crazy, but if you're a 40 year old dude who nails a 13 year old girl, I don't think you should be able to avoid deportation just because you were able to talk her into letting you do it. I think that's enough to qualify you for the "bad hombre" club.
Personally, I'd draw the line with felonies. I wouldn't call ICE for traffic offenses and minor offenses, but if you commit a felony, I think the balance has to lean on the side of not releasing you into the community. Keep in mind that a lawful permanent resident will get deported for far less, so even my standard is pretty lax.
Some do sometimes, but I think they mostly do what their party tells them to do. Look at illegal immigration - that crap always run 70-75% against in any polling, and has for as long as I can remember, yet politicians from both sides do nothing. I remember when Trump started harping on it during the 2016 primaries, I thought, wow, he's the only one who can read a poll. Reparations similarly poll very poorly and always have.
Opinion | Politicians Don’t Actually Care What Voters Want
Not a believer in Occam's Razor, huh?
I'm not sure I understand the applicability here.
You've chosen to believe that law enforcement are purposely acting irrational to serve some political means. Occam's Razor was cited because rather than choose an explanation that involves the least speculation you believe normal people doing their everyday jobs are purposely working against their own self interests.
On the SF incident, wasn't it determined that the SFPD were unaware of the 7 felonies of the assailant?
Phil, you make a good point, and that's an interesting article and study. You'll notice I didn't say politicians do what their constituents want but what motivates them. Here's the difference. What constituents want is pretty simple. It's what their policy preferences are. What motivates constituents is the positions and attitudes that drives them to show up and vote a certain way.
Since you brought up illegal immigration, let's break that down. Yes, if you polled everybody, very few would say they don't want the border secured. However, has the issue always motivated? No. If it did, guys like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (who were the most open border presidents we've ever had) never would have gotten elected. In addition, that motivation has been blunted by disagreement about what to do about the problem, people not wanting to be accused of racism, etc. I think the problem has festered for so long that this is changing, but it still doesn't motivate the way it could.
Woah, I didn't say law enforcement. I said politicians. And yes, they serve political means - not just on this but on most issues. Consider entitlement reform. The rational thing to do is to reform entitlements, but it never
And bear in mind that what we might call "irrational" isn't irrational to them. Doing what serves their political interests is rational and makes all the sense in the world.
I haven't heard that, and frankly I'd be skeptical of such a claim. He went to the slammer in California. It would be almost impossible for them not to know that.
via The Hill --
The 9th Cir Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the Trump Admin. in their effort to prioritize federal funding to towns and cities that comply with immigration policies