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: chr0naut
The current administration is Republican.
Please show some sources supporting that.
Child Rape Suspects Released In New York & New Jersey After Local Jails Refuse To Hold Men For ICE
North Carolina Sheriff Releases Child Molester Wanted By ICE
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.
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'.
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: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
Ya, well right now he seems to just be poking around investigating and he hasn't mentioned much as far as sanctions, except in the title of the article. So, I guess it depends on the sanctions if they come.
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: More1ThanAny1
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: smurfy
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: Riffrafter
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: randomtangentsrme
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?
originally posted by: network dude
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.