Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, 'significant escalation'

originally posted by: chr0naut

You do realize that for ages, no-one cared if they crossed the border.

Completely untrue and it's been a contentious issue my entire life, and I was born in the 70s.

a reply to: chr0naut

don't need it i'm a citizen born and raised here. plus they have been declared that way for a long time. here is a deportation scene, from 1978.



and just for kicks, oh and notice what he ask him at the beginning.


and don't try an play that tired old 500 years ago game, things were different then than they are now. mind set of the world was different. empires thought they could go anywhere they wanted, and pretty much did.

plus native americans weren't native and they also killed one another for land.




here is a lower quality version of the whole thing of them working the system. remember this was 1978. they were doing back then.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

If by house you mean your country, I am a native born US citizen who has ancestry that can be traced back to the revolutionary war. You go and read the first post i responded to in this chain of posts, you will see that one of his suggestions is just cut the medicare for the citizens of the location you chose to sanction...
Social security and medicare, most of us have paid into those programs most of their working lives. I dont care what reason you feel validates cutting those funds off from those who have earned those benefits in such a selective, surgical manner, my next suggestion is that everyone just stop paying any federal taxes and use the money you would be sending to the govt to help your aged parent or neighbor survive instead. The businesses in the area should stop collecting the taxes from their employees.

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: chr0naut

Because you are making up # out of the # you believe. You don't know what the hell you are talking about but that never seems to stop you.

Incarceration in the United States, Ethnicity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Democrats could fix immigration and give seasonal visas to seasonal workers any time they wanted, they refuse to do so.

The current administration is Republican.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I would be happy for real criminals to be prosecuted and handed over to the law enforcement of their originating countries, or, if they will not be treated properly as criminals by that other country, prosecution and incarceration in the US is also a possible second option.

That is who we are talking about. Criminals that these sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for deportation.

Please show some sources supporting that.

The implication that these people are still going to commit criminal actions after incarceration can equally be applied to criminals who happen to be US citizens. Incarceration is a deterrent but cannot make someone do the right thing even under the best of situations.

Yes, and we have enough home grown criminals without taking in the rest of the world's criminals too. There are no good options for many American criminals, for illegal criminals we have a great option, deportation. Democrats actively block that.

You are making the assumption that because they cross the border without official acceptance, they are guilty of other crimes. Blanket deportation removes the otherwise law-abiding, too.

Are you happy to spend tax dollars rounding up and deporting those who are not guilty of any crime other than being in the country without citizenship or equivalent?

I am for spending the money wisely. The first group should be criminals. Removing birthright citizenship for illegals
(which multiple Supreme Court decisions already imply they have no right to) and cracking down on businesses that hire them is a better option than targeting the illegals themselves.

The topic of this thread is the refusal of Democrat sanctuary cities to turn over criminal illegals for deportation.

Ah and there's the rub!

What legally differentiates nearly anyone resident in the US from illegals? If you remove birthright citizenship, even those descended from the founding fathers can be defined as 'illegals' and 'undocumented'.

You can't say "I'm a citizen because my whole family was born here". You'd have to have a process of documenting every citizen because Social Security registration, Taxation registration, Birth certificate, driver's license and all the other documentation is also carried by those you are determining are 'illegals'.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: rickymouse

So, basically then, since the federal govt chooses to not see them as part of the country, then I guess they arent obligated to pay federal taxes...

Americans have to pay taxes even if they are outside of the USA. If an American goes to live in England, all of his businesses within the USA are considered as their earnings, in fact, if they earn money outside of this country, the income is taxable. Unless they renounce their citizenship.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fair enough. However, what about the illegals that aren't criminals? Immigration removal proceedings can take years and some may move to sanctuary cities because they fear a long drawn-out process with a high chance of being deported back to a country that may put them in danger.

a reply to: chr0naut

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

For now.

All of these crimes fall under the jurisdiction of state laws. If CA becomes a "sanctuary state" anything can happen.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: chr0naut

Democrats could fix immigration and give seasonal visas to seasonal workers any time they wanted, they refuse to do so.

The current administration is Republican.

originally posted by: chr0naut
I would be happy for real criminals to be prosecuted and handed over to the law enforcement of their originating countries, or, if they will not be treated properly as criminals by that other country, prosecution and incarceration in the US is also a possible second option.

That is who we are talking about. Criminals that these sanctuary cities refuse to hand over for deportation.

Please show some sources supporting that.

The implication that these people are still going to commit criminal actions after incarceration can equally be applied to criminals who happen to be US citizens. Incarceration is a deterrent but cannot make someone do the right thing even under the best of situations.

Yes, and we have enough home grown criminals without taking in the rest of the world's criminals too. There are no good options for many American criminals, for illegal criminals we have a great option, deportation. Democrats actively block that.

You are making the assumption that because they cross the border without official acceptance, they are guilty of other crimes. Blanket deportation removes the otherwise law-abiding, too.

Are you happy to spend tax dollars rounding up and deporting those who are not guilty of any crime other than being in the country without citizenship or equivalent?

I am for spending the money wisely. The first group should be criminals. Removing birthright citizenship for illegals
(which multiple Supreme Court decisions already imply they have no right to) and cracking down on businesses that hire them is a better option than targeting the illegals themselves.

The topic of this thread is the refusal of Democrat sanctuary cities to turn over criminal illegals for deportation.

Ah and there's the rub!

What legally differentiates nearly anyone resident in the US from illegals? If you remove birthright citizenship, even those descended from the founding fathers can be defined as 'illegals' and 'undocumented'.

You can't say "I'm a citizen because my whole family was born here". You'd have to have a process of documenting every citizen because Social Security registration, Taxation registration, Birth certificate, driver's license and all the other documentation is also carried by those you are determining are 'illegals'.

The current admin is republican. The admin do not pass laws. they enforce them. Congress pass laws. Democrat led House, would be a good place to start.


That the individuals cross borders "without official acceptance" they are guilty of a crime. Period. There is no law abiding.
I recognize this is a fundamental disagreement between different ideologies on the subject.
I swear I heard recently from multiple individuals that no-one is above the law. Would you agree no-one is above the law?

a reply to: chr0naut

i think the point is lately they've been coming in in there thousands i/e the caravans where do you draw the line

Democrats claimed that Trump colluded with Russia and Ukraine to cheat in the 2016 and 2020 US elections, and used that to rush impeachment through the House for reasons of "national security".

At what point are these sanctuary states and Democrats colluding with foreigners to come here and illegally vote in US elections? At what point is that a "national security" concern?

www.fairus.org...

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fair enough. However, what about the illegals that aren't criminals? Immigration removal proceedings can take years and some may move to sanctuary cities because they fear a long drawn-out process with a high chance of being deported back to a country that may put them in danger.

Huh? Illegals that aren't criminals??? The very act and status of being illegal IS criminL, what are you talking about?

It's like they ignore the initial illegal part.

GOOD. GOOD GOOD.

It's time we go to war with leftist locallity.

Notice it's only District Attorneys, mayors and Govs? They think state law Trumps Federal law, but they are WRONG.

The Supreme court will decide with Barr and Trump, thus ending this scheme once in for all.

a reply to: blueman12

Fair enough. However, what about the illegals that aren't criminals?

They already chose to break our laws by entering ilegally. They're all criminals.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

It's time states started following the law. States have rights, I am completely against state's rights being trampled. Immigration is not a state right, it is federal. Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting. Let's start putting law abiding citizens first.

"Rapists, molesters, drunk drivers, these are the people that sanctuary cities are protecting."

Inclined to have a yawn there, like it or not, it's part of life, immigration or not, and it's all against the law...sooo? what does that say?

I wish to go on record to say

YOU ARE sick in the head if ANY OF YOU yawn at rapist coming in and being let go. We don't need any NEW criminals when we already have child rapist being arrested from the Epstein family of friends of the US and Europe and the future convicted RICO democratic party members.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: toolgal462

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

It is still illegal to rape, molest. drive drunk and commit other crimes in sanctuary cities.

Perhaps if they prosecuted the ones that actually committed serious crimes, rather than going after particular ethnicities, or affiliations, or whatever qualification, that has nothing to do specifically with those crimes, they would have less overall crime?

As usual, you have things exactly backwards.

Illegal immigrants first come here illegally,
Then (sometimes) commit further crimes.
Some are pretty bad, like rape, drug trafficing and drunk driving.
And then, because they are "illegal" they are getting special treatment and are let go by the authorities, because they don't want people (like you) claiming their LE are "racist".

Backwards/opposite of what you say.

American citizens commit these crimes too.

Should all American citizens be prosecuted because they are in an arbitrary group of people that has some criminal members? Or would it be more rational to beef up policing to deal only with those who commit actual crimes?

Remember that some of the people groups who you are calling illegals have been coming into America as seasonal workers, for a generation. Some are seeking asylum and fear to return, some simply want a better life for themselves and their families and would be happy to become citizens. They aren't all criminals, despite the recent definition of "illegals" being applied against them.

we have a process for that, but it doesn't include "sneak over the border" as part of the process. I can't believe you didn't know that.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: toolgal462
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't you understand, they are getting away with these crimes because of their illegal status?

Illegals are actually not held to the same standards as citizens, native born criminals. They are given preferential treatment because of people like you, who keep repeating lies about law enforcement in America targeting brown people.

Legal, native born citizens DO NOT GET AWAY WITH CRIMES , they are held accountable .

Again, it's opposite of what you keep saying.

Then why are there more people of non-European origin incarcerated in the US?

The actual situation is the reverse of what you say.

Your steady barrage of false narratives does make some people give you repeatedly exact information that you repeatedly mistake or change to suit your spin. I would say it is perhaps on purpose as you probably are a paid shill.

Please all of you who intend to lie just go away. Your ignorance is hurting the perception of a decent debate. Those of you who pretend you know it all don't take it well when the facts continually expose your point as a lie!

I won't respond to you again on this thread. You are not worthy of responses but your observations have sparked research to make sure we have our facts straight when we share them with ATS. UNLIKE so many on the Hillary payroll.

Why lie when the facts keep exposing you guys over and over like a broken record, why indeed?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: chr0naut

American citizens commit these crimes too. Should all American citizens be prosecuted because they are in an arbitrary group of people that has some criminal members? Or would it be more rational to beef up policing to deal only with those who commit actual crimes? Remember that some of the people groups who you are calling illegals have been coming into America as seasonal workers, for a generation. Some are seeking asylum and fear to return, some simply want a better life for themselves and their families and would be happy to become citizens. They aren't all criminals, despite the recent definition of "illegals" being applied against them.

if they don't have work visas, green cards, or any of the other legal means to be in the U.S. they are illegally here and they are breaking U.S. law. hence the term illegal.

Do you have a green card or work visa?

You do realize that for ages, no-one cared if they crossed the border. Hence there are lots who did so. Now, they have been declared illegal due to policy change. Most aren't guilty of breaking any law in place at the time they migrated.

Did the Pilgrim fathers have all the required paperwork registered with the American Native nation/s? Because my guess is that most people in the US, of European origin, arrived illegally without the explicit permission of the Native peoples.

you really don't get it.

if you are short 4 bucks for your lunch, is it OK to just take the 4 bucks off the table next to you that was left for a tip? If not, why?

a reply to: dawnstar

SS is actually a horrible system and almost everyone would be better off not using it. Not only will most people not get a good return on the money they have put in, they will actually have a net loss.

Social Security: Many pay more in taxes than they'll get back
Couples now in their early 40s will have forked over $808,000 in Social Security taxes by the time they retire, but get back only $703,000 in benefits.

money.cnn.com...

Illegals should get ZERO benefit of any system designed for legal residents. The only thing illegals should get is a plane ticket home.

The topic of the thread is about CRIMINAL illegals that Democrats are protecting though, not all of them.

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Fair enough. However, what about the illegals that aren't criminals? Immigration removal proceedings can take years and some may move to sanctuary cities because they fear a long drawn-out process with a high chance of being deported back to a country that may put them in danger.

The whole put them in danger crap is nonsense. Democrats trying to have their cake and eat it too. When Trump was accused of calling these countries sh**holes he was attacked because these are great places. Now apparently they are such dangerous places no one can live there without fear of constant death. It is a miracle anyone survives the night there it seems.

Every illegal is a criminal, they just are not all rapists and murderers. Birthright citizenship needs to be not given them them since they already should not get it based on the law. That move alone will solve a lot of problems.