It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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'.
Huh? Illegals that aren't criminals??? The very act and status of being illegal IS criminL, what are you talking about?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.